SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Walkuski, B. Jackson, P. Buckenmeyer, K. Coombs, B. Mattingly, D. Berger, G. Beadle, K. Alwes, J. Cottone, L. Anderson, M. Chandler, K. Pristash, A. Johnson, S. VanEtten, P. Schroeder, T. Phillips, D. Walker, E. Bang, D. Stevens, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, B. Jackson, E. McCabe, J. Governali, C. Poole
SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Walsh, J. Hokanson, M. Friga, J. Rayle, J. Peluso, A. Young, W. Shaut, T. Fay, M. Ali
GUESTS PRESENT: D. Fish, P. Koryzno, C. Malone, M. Prus, E. Caffarella, J. Mosser, A. Dahlman, D. VanHall, D. Galutz, T. Pasquarello, L. Ashley, R. Sipher, S. Comins
J. Walkuski: I would like to welcome you to the fifth meeting of the Faculty Senate.� We will conduct our usual business and then convene for an open meeting regarding Senate Reconstruction. The first item of business is approval of the minutes from October 28.� Are there any additions or changes to the minutes?� I have one regarding the amendment to the minutes from October 21 in the Chair�s report, 2nd paragraph.� It should read, �as an outcome of the motion at the last meeting, Chair Walkuski appointed Mike Urtz and Julie Lenhart from Athletics to the Search Committee for Athletic Director, and the President appointed Sonya Comins from Athletics. Let me go ahead and move on then. Policy Committee�s? Student Affairs?� Faculty Affairs?
E. McCabe: I will just say that we met and considered the policy and procedures for the departments and we will be sending out a recommendation soon.
L. Anderson: Well right now this is to be introduced today and voted on at the next Senate meeting.� So, I just wanted to thank the task force that worked on this document. It was a year and a half ago. That included Marley Barduhn, Joe Governali, Rena Janke, Peter McGinnis, policy guidelines have been submitted and will be discussed. I just wanted to thank the task force that worked on this document a year and a half ago and that task force included Marley Barduhn, John Cottone, Bob Darling, the Chair of the Task Force, Joe Governali, Rena Janke, Peter McGinnis, Tim Phillips, Donna Margine, Toni Tiburzi and Karen Zimmerman.� So this document originated in that task force, did lots of work, made its way to EPC last spring, right at the beginning of summer, actually. We disseminated this to campus for review and feedback in the campus community. We did the same this fall in September so you�ve seen it once for sure this fall if not in June last year. And then we, once more, went to the chair�s and deans have people look at it one more time. So what you see before you is the result of the task force,� EPC�s work, lots of feedback through the campus community, voted on and approved at our last meeting and then bringing it here today. The documents are the academic guidelines for SUNY Cortland which were last updated or reviewed in 1986 so it was a very timely thing to do. It�s been awhile. So, what I would ask is you take this with you. If you happen to travel to the meeting Bob Darling will be there from the task force to walk through them carefully, discuss them and vote on them.
J. Walkuski: Great, thank you, Lynn. President�s report?
J. Walkuski: That�s okay.
I wanted to share that I had a wonderful opportunity to make 47 new friends. I
With Graduate Education we
are at the midst of developing a brochure, we are in the midst of developing an
advertising campaign. Something that, in the past, we just did by word of
mouth, and it just gives us an opportunity to, sort of, determine
the kinds and quality of our graduate students.�
In the past it was just heard about as it came. And this way we
We did get a marvelous gift last week, the money is not here yet, the attorney let us know that we have a gift coming for 217 thousand dollars, it is unrestricted, which allows us to use to offer scholarships or whatever we can wisely use those funds. And you can see the power of the use of the good word,� Doug DeRancy, working on a level for many years, but it is a name that people like you give to the college, former students, things of that nature. We have spent a lot of time on Long Island, New Jersey two weeks ago, going down to Hamilton, no I was up at Hamilton, I am going to Hyde Park and Syracuse next week or so, so it�s great to meet our alums, but I think some of you know a lot of things about the alums and we need to know that. They may have worked in the library, they may have worked in the labs, so we need your help.
We did get some good news
from Jim Seward, upstate Senator. Jud had begun the process and I was able to
continue the process. And as Jim said to me on Friday, make the new President
look good, so he�s getting a hundred thousand dollars for us out of the state
budget, and that�s very kind.� If you
know Jim Seward please say thank you, and we will use those funds wisely to
help market the stadium, there�s an economic development project, there�s some
new things coming in, we see the Hampton Inn, so there�s some really nice
opportunity for us to work with the community in this interesting dynamic. This
is part of the Sports Council, in which we have both people in the college and
the business community looking at the entire community as a mechanism to bring
sports and business and industry here.�
Just as an aside, people in sports management and also professional
studies are working to bring a National Women�s Olympics team here, I don�t know if you know, it�s called Women�s Olympic
Team Handball.��� But
if it does come here, what a fantastic opportunity for us.� The thing that it offers, just to give you a
thought, this is a sport that almost nobody plays on the side. I mean, they
play it a lot outside of the
In the international arena, we are looking at, declaring next year, John Ogden is looking at creating a major grant called Understanding Islam.� It will go across the curriculum. And if we get this grant next year we will have a discussion of what it should be the year after. We have a� number of visiting scholars from various subjects will be here, Full-Brighters, others. Please use them in your class for guest lecturers.� We have two ad hoc committees that I have charged last week to look at the issues of equity in sports on our campus. And also the beginning of the task force on the greening of SUNY Cortland. We are looking at composting and the community bike program. You have probably seen the newsletter about the community bike program which is very exciting. And I should mention that we are, of course, this week hosting this week the National Rec, the Leadership Studies Conference. Which just shows you what an influential institution this is. And lots of other things going on but I think I will stop there.
J. Walkuski: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the president?
E. Bitterbaum:� Thank you very much.
J. Walkuski: Area Senators, SUN Senator, Tim?
T. Phillips: I will just make a brief report that at the last meeting at SUNY Oswego the University Faculty Senate passed a resolution relating to systemwide assessment that I sent to you and will distribute to everyone.� And there�s also another document called �Sense of the Senate� in regard to assessment and accountability. And I will send that one to you so everybody can read it.� And it pretty much said we really didn�t want to go charging ahead with system added value assessment at this time.� We want to continue the dialogue that exists between system administration and Faculty Senate at this time.� And it seems to be that, as a result of this, Don Stevens has said from the Provost�s Office we will, in fact, continue the discussion.� We won�t charge systemwide value added assessment until we will have more dialogue about the issue. So people can read those and if they have any feedback on that I will be happy to take that forward.
J. Walkuski: Okay, thank you, Tim. Student Senators?
Unknown: Dave Canaski
L. Andersen: We have an EPC meeting tomorrow and we are talking about that, for example.
J. Walkuski: Dan can you tell us how much the winter formal is?
J. Walkuski: Thank you very much.� Any questions? Did you have a question?
E. Bitterbaum: I wanted to bring up a question for discussion?
J. Walkuski: Okay. Would you prefer we do that before we adjourn the meeting, the open meeting?
E. Bitterbaum: Yes.
J. Walkuski: Certainly.
This occurs at many institutions, but to give you an example tonight we have
four major functions going on. I would like to attend all four but I an only
attend two. But the point is that, the question I want to raise, maybe it
should be the purview of the President�s Office, is how do we make sure that
our students and our faculty are not torn if they want to go to a lot of these
really excellent programs? Here, for example, we have four major programs going
on between five and . I just wanted to know how people felt about this. I had a sense, we
are bringing good people and we are not checking with each other and...maybe we are, maybe
E. Davis-Russell: Yes. This was one of the issues discussed in the long range planning goal one committee.� And what we recommended and Mike Whitlock was on that committee, is that that committee would act in conjunction with Mike�s office as a clearinghouse, so that people who wanted to hold functions would check with Mike and with that group to see what other functions were scheduled. And one of the issues that arose is that there may be more than one function because there may need be directed to different audiences but that we wanted to be careful that there was not indeed an overloading of functions. So, I don�t know the extent of which people have been checking with that committee. Kevin Sheets is the person chairing that committee, and as I indicated Mike Whitlock schedules the spaces, so those were the two points that we had established or had people use as clearinghouses.
E. Bitterbaum: What we need to do is then get that message every semester, because I think that maybe people are probably forgetting. Because in this case these would be four things that you�d want to go to all four as far I am concerned.
K. Alwes: I thank you. I just wanted to share a bit of my own experience, and maybe Ray Franco remembers this, but when I was chair of Multi Cultural and Gender Studies Council we would put on so many different things. We would get together, and I think we did do it through Mike Whitlock, and in some ways we�d have this calendar, and the different chairs of different committees would get together at the begin of each semester with a calender and we would go through as to what we were planning, and if there were too many on one day we would try to change it. I guess we don�t do that anymore.� Ray do you know what I am talking about.
R. Franco: I know what you�re talking about. I think you�re right. I don�t think we do it anymore. Kevin might be able to help a little bit and provide an insight. We do have an electronic calendar. We do have a web based calendar that people are encouraged to check so if you wanted to bring someone early in the spring, you could look and see what has been scheduled.
R. Franco: Anyways, as I was saying, I think we have to make sure that, as you just said, that people get into the habit of checking that calendar and really trying to think about the campus as a community that does have many opportunities to bring in guests.� And I would agree, I don�t think it�s possible to just have a single event, but I think major events on the same night would obviously be problematic because major events do tend to draw out people from across the boards and interest. So, I think that in interest of combination with better use of electronic calendar that we have, it certainly wouldn�t hurt to have major programming entities across the campus sit down, probably realistically mid to late summer at the latest, and then again, mid to late semester in the spring to hash out....
E. Bitterbaum: Some of these major issues of opportunity out there because someone is near by, I realize, but we have a major function that we pulled away from for 3 other major functions, so that�s what my concern is.� I knew we had electronic but I was just curious if we were just using it, so we just need to remind ourselves, that�s probably a good way to go.
J. Walkuski: Yes, Kevin.
K. Pristash: Yes, not to belabor it too much but the electronic calendar is available and we can send that out to everybody so they can have a reminder.� What has happened, our office�s role has been, traditionally, not too much but the electronic calendar is available and we do send that out to everybody so they can have it. What our office�s role is, really, of traditionally to call on people, you know, about particular days and how things fit. But quite frankly, just as you indicated, even when we had those meetings that Karla just eluded to, people would come with their dates pretty much set in stone already. �It was more of an informational process that, you know, people are in focus on this particular day.� And so that does lead to these kinds of conflicts. Personally, as someone who has to take care of these things, I would like to have it spread out in three or four places but our office is available for people to check and look ahead of time to find those kinds of things out so we can try to integrate the process more.
E. Bitterbaum: Well, if you would send an e-mail about the electronic periodically I think it would be very helpful.
J. Walkuski: Great. Thank you very much. I�d like to, now, is there a motion now to adjourn the meeting?� Gordon, thank you. May I have a second please. Dan.� Do we have to vote on this? (aside)� Okay, all in favor of adjourning the meeting to have the open meeting please say �aye.�� Opposed?� The meeting is now adjourned and we will begin the open meeting at this time.
OPEN MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE REGARDING SENATE RECONSTRUCTION
(These Minutes are unofficial and posted here for information purposes only)
As you may recall there was a special committee that was created to look at
Senate restructuring. I�
need to point out to you that this is the first step I think in a
normal process.� We are looking at the
actual Senate membership as of now of four constituent groups. The four groups
being: the faculty from the School of Professional Studies, the faculty from
Arts and Sciences, and the faculty from the School of Education and the Professionals
that are voting faculty. The committee met twice, we have met twice, the first
time we met we discussed a variety of models and we looked forward to having to
mail out the different models.� I felt
that it was probably more important to get feedback and academic faculty
regarding those models. We had some feedback, but in some cases very low to no
feedback at all.� We met last week. We
decided we agreed on two different kinds of models. And I had the charge to set
these models up to the faculty and so what you have before you, we do have
additional copies of my e-mails. There�s a senate model and a so-called
representative model. It�s important to note that, glad to hear people here to
discuss this. We want as much feedback as possible in this process, and please
do understand that once there is some sort of agreement, obviously we can�t
oppose agreement, agreement on the model or models, will be brought forth for a
vote on the part of the voting faculty. And I believe this needs to pass by a
2/3 majority and that will be going forth. And the
anticipation that the model is eventually passed and become enforced, in effect
in May, where individuals can run elections for the Senate offices.� And in the interim time what we will be doing
is also look at memberships upon our other committees, look at their
memberships to see if we have representation of the
K. Alwes: Could you please pass the extras around?� I think there are some people who don�t have them.
J. Walkuski: Certainly.
K. Alwes: Thank you.
J. Walkuski: Absolutely.� Yes Tim.?
T. Phillips: Could you give us a little background on why the committee just chose two models? The models are obviously so different. Being in the school of Arts and Sciences. LAUGHTER.
J. Walkuski: I appreciate that comment. Chris has done a great job. Chris Poole�s on the committee. He has done a great job. He has actually looked at other SUNY campuses and what we found is other SUNY campuses have a quite complex formula on how they determine membership of the Senate.� We felt that, we looked at the first model and we had a Senate type model, we seemed to agree on the number of 6.� Again, we are only talking about Senators in the school of Education, Professional Studies, Arts and Sciences, and Professional staff. That�s all we�re dealing with. We felt the six figure we doable, because I had gotten some concerns about the 19 figure in the second model saying how can you get all these people to run? Well, it�s not perfect and that�s why we opened it up for discussion. There�s no real history behind how we had set up the Senate membership.� I have not been able to find it here. So, let�s just make it open for discussion, Tim and I know you like the second model best. Yes, Larry?
L. Ashley: Both of these proposals represent a pretty sizable increase in the number of people who constitute the Senate. And at a time when we are having trouble getting people to serve at the college the number of people who have been able to perform that service has been dwindling over the years. So, that�s a concern for me. But, I guess I�d like to ask what�s broken that this change is designed to fix?
J. Walkuski: Nothing�s broken, something just came into being last year and this was an issue that was not taken care of by the previous Chair. But the school of ed was not represented in the current bylaws and this was meant to address that particular situation in the Handbook.
L. Ashley: But the Handbook does specify that 3 elected representative from Educational Administration, Childhood and Early Childhood, Foundations and Social Advocacy Literacy and Speech Pathology will be part of this body. So the reorganization which was structural, interesting and perhaps important for us to do, doesn�t seem to relate to the representatives of each area for the faculty body.� We did, in fact, consequent upon the reorganization, go out and hire people a lot of people who were without representation before but now need some consideration by the Senate.� So, I am kind of wondering what is the point of such a drastic reassignment of proportional representation or non-proportional representation giving the way our handbook is currently written?
J. Walkuski: Well, I certainly would argue that I don�t think that part section in the Handbook addressed the needs of the individuals in the School of Education.� In fact, the individuals Speech Pathology and Audiology are, in fact, in the School of Professional Studies.� And the Senate model presently is based on a two school system.� What we are trying to do is address the fact that we now have 3 schools. That is the main emphasizes for this.
L. Ashley: Okay, one more time, then I will yield to someone else for other issues.� But the shape and structure of our faculty has not notably changed. And his is a very large change. And the relationship between voting faculty are parts of our voting faculty so why would we want to make such a change unless it�s independently justifiable, other than by the re-organizational issues?
J. Walkuski: So your issue with the total numbers themselves? Do you not feel that the School of Education should have it�s own representation to the Senate?
L. Ashley: The departments that make up the School of Education are provided for under our current rules.
J. Walkuski: That�s correct, but again I will point out to you but this part representation actually discussed and looks at it in conjunction of Speech and Audiology who are in the School of Professional Studies.
L. Ashley: And who make up members of the body.
J. Walkuski: Speech Path?
L. Ashley: Yes.
J. Walkuski: No.
L. Ashley: They do not?
J. Walkuski: But they don�t have members in this present body.
L. Ashley: But they may have.� Our rules allow for them to be elected to this role?
J. Walkuski: Well it would be Education/Speech Pathology, absolutely.
L. Ashley: Well, I am still not quite clear on what the motivation for this large change is unless you think that something is broken. And, in fact, aren�t you suggesting in a way that something is broken if Speech Pathology doesn�t have a member on a committee, which might be solved in some other way.
J. Walkuski: Yes, it�s solved by having a seat that the School of Professional Studies that Speech Pathology can run for, or it can run at large. I don�t know whether I am getting through to you but the idea is that we have a new school. The bylaws don�t take into account the School of Education as a separate entity. We are just trying to provide representation for that school. That�s the point.� And the way it was defined in the Handbook, to me it�s not very clear. And I�m acting on feedback I�ve gotten from School of Education faculty.� Larry I�ll have to go on to someone else here. David?� I�ll have to get back to you Larry.
D. Berger: In discussing this with some of my constituents in various settings, if I can boil it down to a generalization of what they were saying is they would prefer something that�s in between these two model. The second model which gives a lot, like 19 or so to Arts and Sciences, maybe too much, in many of their opinions, and unrealistic in terms of getting, filling positions.� And the model that has equal representation is probably too little for Arts and Sciences which has a majority of faculty. So, they are talking about something in between, where Arts and Sciences has some more, but not this many.
J. Walkuski: Again my issue is how do we figure out representation? Is it number of students served, number of majors, FTE�s? It can be a very complicated process, so if you or your colleagues have an idea, suggest an idea to the committee, give it to me.
D. Berger: Nobody has given me a formula, but that�s a general opinion that it�s somewhere in between. And I guess it would involve the old American tradition of compromise between the two.
J. Walkuski: Okay, that�s the purpose of this meeting. I�m looking around here. Okay, Karla and then Gordon.
K. Alwes: You brought up how do you decide? How did you decide when you were making this model? What was the formula for it?
J. Walkuski: Well what we did is, we looked at, we took the total number of voting, and this is crucial, faculty. Faculty includes, according to the Board of Trustees, the Professionals on particular lines, and academic faculty. And we looked at the number of faculty in the Professional line that were voting in the School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Professional Studies, the School of Education. And we simply did a percentage, representation. The second e-mail was to clarify. I don�t know if I really clarified it well enough, but there was some feeling among some of the Professionals on the committee that we could adjust their numbers, since if you put it to use a straight percentage, the professionals would have had a majority of the Senate.� And to alleviate the fears of some of the individuals on this campus, they want academics to be the purview of the academic faculty. We adjusted the total number of Professional faculty by a factor of .75. And don�t ask how that came up. One of the committee members said if you factor it by this number and reduce the total number this may alleviate some of the fears of individuals on campus.� So, we divided that number by the total number of voting faculty, got a percentage, and we simply converted that to a whole number and divided by two.� So, we came up with our own little common formula.� Yes, go ahead.
K. Alwes: I think what Larry is talking about is right here. I�m quite sure that�s what he�s talking about. And the idea that there are 3 elected representatives from each. So, you, in other words, dealt with a formula that dealt with the size of departments?
J. Walkuski: That�s the second model.� Just the size of faculty. That�s the second model.� Because the issue that we came across is how do you really define that a student really is? Is it a student who takes a Philosophy course for one semester as a GE, or that is within a major program of study?� What about our students that are undeclared in the great abyss waiting to get into a program or to decide on what you want to do with your lives?� We have those numbers but, pretty much if you look at the student numbers, I am confident to tell you that between all the schools they are pretty much equal, between all the schools.� Yes?
T. Pasquarello: Tom Pasquarello from Political Science. I have kind of a lengthy statement which I will pass around.
T. Pasquarello: I won�t, I guess, go into the whole thing. But I am very much opposed to the Senate model. The reasons that I�m opposed to it I�ve put in the comments that I�m handing out, but I will summarize the two main reasons that I am against it.� Voting equality, in studies of political theory and studies of political democracy is pre-eminent in the premises and principles of representative democracy. And it�s a principle that�s often expressed in the phrase �one person, one vote.�� It seems obvious to me that the Senate model severely violates this principal while the representative model more merely upholds it.� The only rationale I could see for the unequal representation being embodied in the Senate model were if the primary role of the Faculty Senate was to settle disputes among the schools. But in my twenty years of observing Faculty Senate and often serving on Faculty Senate I�ve noticed that that�s decidedly not the case, that those kinds of issues are decided in other areas. And so I don�t know why, if are you going to violate the principal of equal representation, it seem incumbent, it is violated once in awhile in democratic institutions but you have to come up with good reason to do that.� And I am not sure what the reason is for violating that one person one vote standard.� It does say Faculty Senate, it doesn�t say, it says Faculty Senate, we don�t say Student Senate, or number of students represented Senate. It just says Faculty Senate.
J. Walkuski: Thank you very much. Yes Chris?
C. Malone: I�d just like to point out the majority of courses taught in Education, School of Education, and I think I right here, and some in Professional Studies, are taught by adjuncts. Our definition of who can vote in Faculty Senate is a full-time faculty member.� Whereas if we had the resources to hire the people, the number that the School of Professional Studies and Education should have, that�s full-time faculty members, these numbers would be a lot different, And that�s something that I think that everybody should consider when you�re thinking about the one vote that Tom�s talking about, because that�s not equitable due to the resource situation.� You should think about that.
J. Walkuski: Thanks Chris. Discussion upon this?
J. Governali: I think we�re starting at the wrong end of this. I think the question we are dancing around and the one we should answer first, the more philosophical question, as to who we want to represent and what we want this Faculty Senate to look like when we are done, both models that you proposed, and who we want the Faculty Senate to look like....
J. Walkuski: that the committee has proposed.
J. Governali: ....that the committee has proposed indicate that everybody is trying to be in everything. The present model for example, if I have this correctly, 6 Arts and Sciences, 6 Professional Studies....?
J. Walkuski: Yes
J. Governali: The two models that you represented would be an equal number of Professional staff. Professional staff is not the same as faculty so I think that that�s a philosophical issue that needs to be addressed, as well as who the Faculty Senate is representing.� Do they represent other Senators or other faculty members? Do they represent the schools? Do they represent the numbers of students in the schools? I think those questions need to be addressed first, from a philosophical perspective, and then work backwards and look at the numbers.� I think those questions are the ones we almost don�t want to be involved with, almost I think, but it is a discussion I think we should have.
J. Walkuski: Yes, I think that�s a relative point.
K. Pristash: I agree with Joe�s point about having that discussion. Just one thing that strikes me, Jeff, as you go out there as far as numbers of Professional staff.� I think people still aren�t used to it but over the last couple of years they converted, like, the coaches from Professional Studies have all been converted from faculty lines into Professional staff lines. And there�s quite a few of those Professional staff that actually work in academic departments.� So, it�s much different than a few years ago, so you have a large number of Professional Staff but quite a few of them are in academic departments.
M. Chandler: It seems to me that the first model is getting equal numbers to all constituencies of the campus is working towards this content type of philosophy. And on this campus, over the last several years, we have had every single unit on campus be responsible for the assessment of our student learning, for the assessment of our programs.� And that gives everybody sort of an equal plane and equal responsibility. And by having equal numbers next to the constituency it allows us to look at each other in a inter-dependent relationship so that we are all working for what�s best for the college, rather than just what�s best for my unit.� If I have 19 people in my area and we all say let�s vote this way.� That may be best for our part division, but it may not be best for the entire college.� So, I say, the first is less egalitarian and less divisive in being able to split the kinds of decisions, but really we want to talk to one another, to collaborate, and to come up with some consensus toward moving the whole college forward.
J. Walkuski: Thank you. Yes?
R. Sipher: My name is Roger Sipher. I am from the History Department.� To answer Larry�s question I think a large number of faculty think the Senate is broken and the Senate doesn�t represent the teaching faculty.� We had a petition a few years ago of over hundred people had signed wanting to change some administrator�s decision.� We had trouble even getting� on the agenda of the Faculty Senate to discuss that important issue.� They say �necessity is the mother of invention.�� I think it�s important that you create a Faculty Senate where the teaching faculty have a major say in the decisions that are made.� Now that�s not to denigrate the importance of Professionals. We all know that.� It�s simply is that many of the problems that develop, personnel, etc., etc. are problems that confront the teaching faculty alone.� And to be diplomatic about it we have had an attitude over the last few years that has not been terribly friendly towards the teaching faculty.� Orders seem to get handed down in some sort of authoritarian manner that seems to offend a lot of faculty members and they are feeling left out of things.� I like the first model, John, this young man over here, argued about it a few days ago.� I�m not sure the second model isn�t too cumbersome.� I don�t like necessarily the first model. And I suppose all of us, if we could tinker with it, would change it in some way.� But from my perspective, it gives 18 votes to the teaching faculty and 6 votes to the professional faculty.� I don�t think the needs of the Professional faculty are going to get ignored by the 18 votes of the teaching faculty.� I think you need to do something because so many faculty members are alienated and feel that their voices aren�t being heard.� Dr. Bitterbaum has been a breath of fresh air as he expressed at his first meeting, and has expressed since, that he believes in faculty democracy.� But I don�t think that this Senate, as it�s presently constituted, is working.
J. Walkuski: Thank you. Any other discussion? Larry.
L. Ashley: I would like to say something about the issue that Joe raised. I agree with him that these are important philosophical issues.� But unfortunately our hands are somewhat tied in respect to some of these issues. The policies of the Board of Trustees define voting faculty for us. And whatever we write has to be consistent with the Board of Trustee�s definitions of who is a faculty member and who is not.� For example, the Board of Trustees defines our professionals as our faculty.� The issue of faculty versus voting faculty and whatever is written by the Board of Trustees is very technical, but very real to us, because we are not at liberty, under that document, to alter those things.� And I am too concerned with the issue that Chris Malone brought up. We have a very large number of contingent faculty and the Board of Trustees rules contingent out of voting faculty at the college. And this looks like becoming more and more important as we are driven by economics structures to have a large part of our faculty be contingent labor. So, there are interesting issues here. But I would like to participate with Joe in an open discussion by expressing an awareness that our hands are tied structures with the respects to some of the definitions and structures that are imposed on us.
J. Walkuski: Thank you Larry.� David and Karla?
D. Berger: I would like to ask Larry about his comments. If we are indeed constrained by the Board of Trustees policies regarding new faculty.� Does that favor either of those models?�� I think one interpretation means that we can�t have a strictly teaching Faculty Senate.� We need to include non-teaching faculty. But the various proportions that are represented here are still not, in my view, dictated by the Board of Trustee�s policy.
J. Walkuski: Karla and then Larry.
K. Alwes: While I appreciate what Tom was saying about model two, I think model two is unwieldy, because as the chart goes around for our signatures we see, as it is, so many seats that are vacant. And I think this would be embarrassingly unwieldily if, in fact, as many people did not participate as now and we�ve had this many seats offered. So, I�m just suggesting that that model two might be unwieldy.
J. Walkuski: Tying in with your statement, you look at some of the vacancies, I think a lot of it has to do with the perception of what the Senate is, a mountain a lion?� Hopefully, in discussions like these we can talk about what we want the Senate to be because I am really perplexed as to why we don�t have more involvement in the Senate. David then Phil.
D. Berger: Just in the last statement that you made, I agree with what Roger said, I�ve heard that from Roger and from many other people as the reason why they haven�t run because they think it�s not worth being on the Senate, since it�s a mess.
J. Walkuski: Okay.� Tim?
T. Phillips: I think Karla has a very good point, I don�t think it�s reasonable we are going to expect that we�re going to get too many people here. And I don�t agree with the first model and I certainly don�t agree with the second model, either. I don�t know.�� Procedurally, are we going to vote or is this still discussion?
J. Walkuski: This is discussion, informational, we will get your feedback on tape take it back to the committee.
T. Phillips: There seems like there could be a more reasonable compromise between these two models which could be offered up.� It seems like two ends of the extreme. So, maybe the committee could come back with another proposal that would be something like a compromise that Dave had mentioned earlier
J. Walkuski: I�m sorry. Tom?
T. Pasquarello: I don�t agree with what Karla said and Tim.� And I didn�t read this, but in the last paragraph, if the only objection is to the number of people you could retain that just by cutting the numbers in half. If you keep the proportions the same they all divide neatly in half except by one and then you could retain the proportions.� Because it does seem unwieldy to have that many people for a body that meets in an hour. And I�d also like to say that I think that I am somewhat persuaded by the voices that are speaking for some kind of compromise on these, as well.� That to me would be much preferable.
J. Walkuski: Thank you. Phil?
P. Buckenmeyer: I agree with Karla.� I think the mere semantics of going through the voting procedure for, what�s more in terms of numbers, for model two is very unwieldy.� And I think something in terms of number-wise closer to model one would better fit a functional Faculty Senate. Just a comment in terms, I don�t disagree with the idea, maybe some of the faculty have a hard time believing if someone is a good representative or not. I�ve been here a year and I know how busy faculty are and I�m not sure if faculty feel, a lot of faculty feel that they have time, and I appreciate that faculty have time because it�s very important that faculty participate in these sorts of functions because that�s how work is done.� If people don�t participate on campus, in order for things to function right, is maybe not the first priority.
J. Walkuski: Gordon?
G. Beadle: I would like to make a motion to drop the membership of Arts and Sciences to 12 and Professional Staff to 9.
J. Walkuski: Gordon this is not a motion but I�ll take your suggestions again. I�m writing this down.� What was that again? To twelve?
G. Beadle: 12. And Professional Staff to 9.� I think you can come up with any kind of a formula or any kind of a number you want but I think it would make it more probably. I can�t see us getting 19 people to run...more statistics....is part-time staff now number 44-1/2% of our teaching faculty.
C. Malone: That�s across the college?� But not the schools.
B. Beadle: Across the college.
C. Malone: It�s much different than across the schools.
J. Walkuski: Yes, I�d like to point out that there is a part-time representative that has not been filled for as long as I have been on the Senate in 1999. Yes, Larry and then Lynn?
L. Ashley: I think a lot is going to turn in terms of getting something effected depends on what is presented to the faculty. You require, according to the bylaws a 2/3 approbation of the faculty, and certainly as a choice between these two after discussion I find it hard to imagine that either one will be voted in. Also I think that importance of whether or not the Faculty Senate offers no change as an option.� I think that if the Senate really feels that there is something that needs to be well argued, a single least controversial, most compromise kind of thing you can get otherwise, I think it will be difficult to get the faculty to say yes to it if it looks at all converse.� I think a big problem, make it a big issue, so that people understand, so that they understand that this change is not going to be destructive to a set of dynamics that are in place in the college.� So, that�s just a recommendation. Maybe it�s going to happen already but I can�t imagine either of these proposals passing as they currently are.
J. Walkuski: Again the purpose was to get feedback on the two and we�ll take that feedback and present another one for further discussion. Lynn and Dan, I believe.
L. Anderson: I just wanted to reiterate that the committee be very clear that these numbers in model two represent schools that have inequitable amounts of temporary faculty teaching and that is not my choice.� We all want to have adjunct faculty within our ranks but unfortunately let�s not make it more inequitable by using the model two numbers.� It�s already inequitable enough.
D. Walker: I don�t particularly know the answer to this but I am sure someone might be able to explain it to me. But what were the original numbers that were used to designate the faculty that we have now?� And why is it such a problem to just go back and apply those same standards to the School of Education as well. And if they� just designated, like say� 45 faculty, INAUDIBLE we go back and say 33 faculty equal a certain number of teachers by applying the same standards.
J. Walkuski: Like I said before, I cannot find any historical records.� I can�t find them but that is a good suggestion. Is there someone over here?� John and then...
J. Cottone: Just going back, I see Tim just left, it was never the intent that these would be the only two models. I was a member of the committee and actually this went a lot better than we would have anticipated.� LAUGHTER. But I think....I am here....I think as a committee I am hearing some good feedback and I think they were probably in between these three or four different hybrids, and based on a lot of the information, so we just needed a starting point.� And I think based on what I am hearing now, I think a lot of good feedback has come back, and I would welcome some additional models brought forward that we can look at. But I think at this point what we could look at is a....this discussion has been rather civil.� And I think there is a lot of positive that did come out of this. And I think at some point whatever is going to be fair and equitable based on the representation areas, I think it seems like we�ll be able to move int hat direction.
J. Walkuski: Thank you, John. Ellen?
E. McCabe: I am also a member of the committee and I did want to say that the second model is based on the requirements of the Board of Trustees as far as the makeup of the faculty senate. And I just wanted to bring this out because everybody would say where do those numbers come from? We did, we wanted to look, we started to look at FTE�s and adjunct faculty but we are restricted as far as the Board of Trustees goes.
J. Walkuski: Thank you Ellen and Joe and then...Go ahead, Joe.
J. Governali: There is a question of restriction that needs to be examined. I think both of these models work within restrictions, different alternatives, so before we tie ourselves down, I think we should understand that. I think the reason this has been a civil, as John as indicated, we really haven�t dealt with the underlying issues in terms of what this Faculty Senate should look like.� I can tell you from a lot of experience there�s a lot of unhappiness, at least, in the School of Professional Studies in the past due to the fact that representation hasn�t been equal across the two schools, and we have, of course, 3 schools now.� It affects that distribution that exists on the committees as well and I would disagree with Tom in part of what he said in regard to some of the issues not being school issues.� Some of the issues are school issues. The issue last year with graduate school hours, we divided completely along school lines on that.� I think it�s a real issue when there�s such an inequitable distribution of representation as that second one.
J. Walkuski: Thank you. Yes?
G. Beadle: The committee or the Senate put together a document that would make up three different possibilities.� One is how the current Senate is currently constituted and why there�s a good model and why people think it needs to be changed, and the same pro and con on the two different proposals. Then ask for written feedback from the faculty about all of this and you might get, people all the time will not stand up at the meeting because of courtesy stand up and say what�s on their mind, but they might if you write something to a committee or write something to the Faculty Senate.� They will be very honest about their opinions. And maybe you will get more feedback that way. I don�t think you should go ahead and think it�s essential to go ahead and change the structure. In the long run, as Larry said, you have to convince the faculty if you want to make the change, and what sort of change they want
D. Berger: I think some of my institutional memory is coming back. LAUGHTER.� (I think these numbers came from sub schools, or sub divisions, in other words, Arts and Sciences has Fine Arts and Humanities, social sciences and natural representatives, and there were so many representatives in each one.� And the old Professional Studies had HPER, Health, Education, whatever is was, and so there were so many representatives from each of those subdivisions or sub schools and so I think that�s where those numbers initially came from.
J. Walkuski: Yes?
K. Coombs: I just wanted to point out that the resolution that passed that gave the School of
Education some representation, in the meantime, kind of clouds where exactly representation is and it doesn�t exactly handle the fact that there are two schools, you know, so there is still a problem to be fixed, about the fact that there are 3 schools.� I think it�s important to know because we really can�t go back to the old model because of the fact that there are 3 schools and what we did the beginning of this year was kind of put a temporary patch to that.
J. Walkuski: Yes, Larry.
L. Ashley: I�d like to second what Joe said I think there are some important perceptual issues that need some hashing out in part because we end up with things like search committees that look like some that we recently generated that have all kinds of difficulty because we want equal representation.� We end up with affected areas easily being outvoted because we constitute our search committees like mini Senate structures.� And I think we need to put some serious thought to both how we construct search committees and so the Senate does require the sort of thing that Joe suggested. We have to look at the fact that this body is charged exclusively, the only thing charged to this committee is overseeing the curricular issues of the college.� That�s what it is supposed to be about.� And the more we alter the external and internal structure and have decisions made the more you�re going to increase the likelihood that discontented people out there who feel that their the ones who actually have to implement the issues but it was decided by forces and dynamics instructors well swamping their curricular input.� And people do complain about this a lot.� And that�s sort of the thing that Roger was saying, too.� It�s an issue the Senate has to come to grips with.
D. Galutz: I am Dianne Galutz, Professional, and President for Professionals on campus. And I don�t necessarily support either one. I really don�t have an opinion on either one, but I would like to support the increase in the number of Professionals.� As you know, we�ve grown they have transferred the coaches we are up to 200 Professionals on campus because several years ago we were about 120.� And proportionally I think representation should be increased.� I think it would help some of the coaches who are Professionals.� They can�t run for the academic positions but it would give them the chance if they wanted.� Admittedly we have a rough time getting professionals to run but I think if they felt there was more representation I think we could get more people to run.� So I would like to at least support the increase in our representation.
J. Walkuski: Thank you. Any other comments? �Discussion? David?
D. Berger: Well, let�s see how delicately I can put this.� LAUGHTER.
J. Walkuski: We�ll wait.� LAUGHTER
D. Berger: Some of my constituents have voiced concerns regarding who votes on what.� And that if there are curricular matters that we are voting on then shouldn�t that be voted on either exclusively or mainly by teaching faculty and not people who are not part of the academic faculty. Now that�s a situation which isn�t easy to resolve, but maybe it would involve rules such that certain Senators refrain from voting when it�s a particular issue, I don�t know how it would work.� But these concerns my constituents raised regarding who was voting on the curriculum since the curriculum is the responsibility of the teaching faculty.
M. Chandler: David all curricular changes and decisions directly effect many of the units that professionals run because those decisions made in isolation without input as to whether or not there are support services available, about whether or not this is a doable kind of change, whether it�s in the best interests of the students or anything else. I don�t think in isolation, I don�t think that faculty without the support of support services of other agencies such as counseling and other areas could rightfully say that those decisions have to be made in isolation by teaching faculty because there are a lot of people feel that academics and with curriculum concerns because it affects their departments or their units, they�re not reaching directly but they will
J. Walkuski: Thank you.
D. VanHall: Dawn Van Hall, Library.� I would also like to remind the group that there are a lot of other professional issues that the Faculty Senate looks at that were very disproportionately represented on.� We always feel that we need to come and try to sell our case because they may not understand that the professional issues are, but they are in the majority voting for professional issues, for example the way DSI is handled.� So, that�s just a counter statement that I would throw out to you so you will not forget.� Thank you.
Unknown: I�d like to recognize....
J. Walkuski: I�ll do the recognizing.� Donna and then....?� Amy.
D. Fish: I wanted to agree with what Mary Angela said although I firmly believe, David, that there�s a great� deal of validity in what you are saying that the faculty need to own the curriculum and large group discussing that and knowing there are various issues.� One of the issues that concerned me gravely is, Dan said earlier two professionals talk about this drop/add period and I am sitting on the EPC Committee now looking at a train wreck about to happen and knowing there�s nothing I can do to stop it.� More time to view drop and add as a good thing and I am sure faculty weigh the pros and cons to that and I am seeing major, major financial implications for the students and somehow or other that�s not getting across to them.� So it�s also best to have a variety of opinions on the table so that people can see different perspectives in curricular and non-curricular policies affect all of us.
A. Dahlman: I am Amy Dahlman, I�m a Professional and I�ve been on the Senate many times over the years and as a professional when faculty and teaching faculty issues have come up, Angela, many of us have gone out of our way to teach ourselves, learn about your issues, and actually, shall I say, lobby. There are other things and David you know this there are lots of things that have gone on over the years.� DSI is a perfect example, there were 3 professionals and many, many faculty and the faculty in essence voted on how the professionals would be changing, and we were unable to �suck it up.�� And I really don�t think our three votes hurt you guys.� The other issue is, right now, I am actually still getting over the fact that I�m considered 75% as a professional.� You said we were 75% in our second choice here, which, really that kind of cut me a little bit to the quick, because we are full-time, year round people who are here, last night at night, David Canaski, Donna Margine and I were all at Student Government. There�s a lot of work going on with professionals. And perhaps, I really hate to broach this, perhaps we need to be looking at the role of professionals in the Faculty Senate and if you wish to reduce us, well I don�t think you do.� I am certainly supportive of this 6 6 6 6 group because I think that�s the most realistic and fair right now.� We have a lot of part-timers, a lot of people teaching in all of the schools, but I also think we could come up with a compromise between the two.� But I know professionals have always supported faculty and I also believe that many faculty have supported professionals on the Senate.
J. Walkuski: Thank you, Amy. Any other comments? Any other discussion?� I don�t see any hands flying here so the open meeting is now over I�d like to have a motion to....
C. Malone: Reconvene
Reconvene the senate please. Have a motion? David? Seconded by John Cottone. All in favor. Opposed?� Okay let�s move along here, very quickly ladies and gentlemen, College Research Committee, General Education Committee, Committee on Committees?
B. Jackson: Grand poo bah let�s go back to the General Education Committee. INAUDIBLE.
J. Walkuski: With regards to Senate elections, Peter has e-mailed me, he has set up a possible electronic voting for the faculty. I�ve been so busy I haven�t had a chance to test it out. I will report that we have no old business, no new business, so I�d just like to say that I really appreciate the open meeting.� The body shared with us and feel it�s a very healthy thing to do and I appreciate it as a Chair of the Senate. Motion to adjourn please?
G. Beadle: So moved.
J. Walkuski: Second? All in favor. Opposed? Thank you very much.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 PM