February 17, 2004


1.CALL TO ORDER: The 9th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2003-2004 was called to order at 1:10 PM on February 3, 2004 in the Hall of Fame Room, PER Center, by Chair Jeffrey Walkuski.


SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Walkuski, B. Jackson, P. Buckenmeyer, K. Coombs, B. Mattingly, P. Walsh, J. Cottone, J. Hokanson, M. Friga, J. Rayle, M. Chandler, J. Peluso, K. Pristash, A. Johnson, S. VanEttten, A. Young, M. Barone, D. Walker, D. Stevens, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell; R. Franco, W. Shaut, B. Jackson, C. Plunkett, T. Fay, C. Poole, M. Ali


SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Beadle, K. Alwes, L. Anderson, P. Schroeder, T. Phillips, E. McCabe


GUESTS PRESENT: J. Mosser, P. Koryzno, M. Prus, E. Caffarella, D. Margine



The Senate voted to approve a pool of six individuals to serve on the Academic Grievance Tribunal: Joy Mosher, Joseph Rayle, Reginal Grantham, Eileen Gravani, Jerome O�Callaghan and Jeffrey Walkuski(Passed)



Minutes #8 were voted on and approved from February 3, 2004 asposted electrically.


���������������������� The Senate Restructuring Model was voted on and passed with a roll call vote as follows: Approved: B. Jackson, P. Buckenmeyer, K. Coombs, B.Mattingly, P. Walsh, J. Cottone, J. Hokanson, M. Friga, J. Rayle, M. Chandler, J. Peluso, K. Pristash, A. Johnson, A. Young, M. Barone, D. Walker, D. Stevens.Abstained: S. VanEtten (Mgt. Confid.)Opposed: None.



The Chair opened by thanking President Bitterbaum for providing the refreshments at the meeting. The President responded that although, traditionally, it was done at the last meeting in December, due a delay they were not provided until this meeting. He apologized because he had hoped they would be fancier but offered something nicer next time.The Senate thanked him for his thoughtfulness.


The Chair announced that he had been asked by the Provost to form a pool of six individuals to serve on the Academic Grievance Tribunal, four of which will also be chosen to serve next year.The names were: Joy Mosher, Joseph Rayle, Regina, Grantham, Eileen Gravani, Jerome O�Callaghan, Jeffrey Walkuski.



Jackson referred to the Standing Rules for the Faculty Senate procedures that the formative committee to review DSI for faculty is not outlined.He has chosen some individuals from Professional Studies, and as chair of the committee, will be biased in looking for two more persons from the School of Education. He will be asking Michael Friga to recruit some people. The committee has to move quickly by next week to approve or not approve the Senate rules for DSI for faculty since it is not stated in the Handbook.



Treasurer Coombs reported that the Faculty Senate is in serious financial straights. There is only $250 in the checking/savings account, and the Senate is very much in need of dues or the Faculty Scholarship won�t be able to be funded. The Steering Committee is also discussing fund raising ideas and she urged anyone if they had any ideas to send her an e-mail.





President Bitterbaum had a few short items. One is that Senator Jim Seward is coming to have lunch with the President, Cabinet and Sports Council.


Two proposals are being presented from Academic Affairs, funding for the library, and equipment, which are very large proposals considered as legislative member items. The Senator was very interested in both proposals, and the President reported, asked good questions.Bitterbaum offered that, based on that, he is hopeful maybe one, or both, will be considered, although it is up to Seward�s discretion. The President announced that he was very pleased.


The next item of business regarded Vice President William Shaut and the Construction Fund. He had good news to report that during the recent power outage where the college had to spend $40,000, these monies were refunded. He was also very pleased with this news.


He reported that there are three finalists for the Vice President�s position.


His office heard from the Chancellor the day before as the campus is about to begin its second round of Mission Review. They will be outlined and will be forwarded to the Deans, and appropriate Chairs, and the Provost which will be for 2005-2010.The Chancellor truly believes in this process and there are a record numbers of students who come to SUNY where record research dollars are being raised by philanthropy which effects Mission Review.


He is very optimistic about the Capital Plan of 40 million dollars, and although we requested a little more, he said, �We are keeping our fingers crossed.�


His closing words were regarding the recent proposal approved by the Faculty Senate regarding the extension of the drop/add period to seven days.�I would like to mention very briefly about the last meeting regarding drop add. I can tell you that an innumerable people have contacted me through e-mail or individually. I am interested in having a dialogue with the Provost, Cabinet, Council Department Chairs and then take it back to the faculty.He then read a typical e-mail, �I am sure you are getting many unsolicited responses regarding the extension of drop/add. Please let me briefly add my own. Most of us value our class time with students and do not want to spend our class time with students and do not want to spend the first class meeting or two treading water until we start teaching substantive material.�The letter went on to point out that the last time this happened there was a vote on Gen Ed reform in 1993 and the whole faculty participated.President Bitterbaum a possible model where drop/add would start on Monday and go to Friday which would allow for 4-1/2 days.This would not affect the students, they could pick up their checks on the following Monday, checks could be run over the weekend, and would allow every student to attend class and allow faculty to establish class.He said it is very important to him as a faculty member.Another model would be to start on Tuesday and end on the following Monday.He said he hopes to �flush these out� and meet with EOP and find a middle ground that might be sensible.He said a third of the faculty, approximately, were in one direction, and added, �...so I want to find where the greater good can be found...open to questions.�



Vice Chair Jackson asked what Mission Review was. Dr. Bitterbaum explained that it was a process where the campus compensates its goals and strategies as an entire college as well as covering individual departments.A Memorandum of Understanding is developed, he explained further, for the Chancellor which the President if held accountable for.This process is mandated by the Board of Trustees but there is flexibility within each school.Not every Mission Review is the same for every campus but it falls under the substantive values of SUNY.He believed our Memorandum of Understanding is on the Web and he also offered, if anyone was interested, to provide copies.




Long Range Planning Committee - Fay mentioned Mission Review and that by the following day his committee would have met for three straight weeks.He said that Dr. Bitterbaum would have a better understanding of the first planning cycle. They are also going to be bringing back a recommendation as to a possible adjustment modification model of the planning cycle.


Educational Policy Committee - No report (absent)


Student Affairs CommitteeBuckenmeyer mentioned that his committee is awaiting selection of candidates for the Faculty Senate Scholarship pending funding.


Faculty Affairs Committee - No report (absent)






XI. SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT: No report (absent)






Committee on Committees - No report.


XIII. OLD BUSINESS: The Chair started out the business of the Senate Restructuring Proposal by handing out the same document that was handed out last time, with a clarification in bold to make sure it was clear as to the process.This Restructuring Model, he went on to state, did not just appear.He wanted to acknowledge the committee�s work who met 3-5 times: Joseph Governali, John Cottone, Michael Friga, Ellen McCabe, Chris Poole, David Berger and Andrea LaChance.He said he really appreciated their work on this.He clarified that since this came from a committee it did not need a second.He read the document again out loud.


Philip Walsh asked what original bylaw this referred to and Walkuski responded by referring to page 9 in the Handbook.He said, �This particular motion has been intended to replace the second, third and fourth point in the Handbook.


Shawn VanEtten asked if this rule would effect his Management Confidential seat to which Walkuski replied that this motion would not impact any other positions.


MaryAngela Chandler commended the people for taking all of the faculty�s comments into consideration. She felt the plan lent itself very well and allowed for a very cohesive number of people represented on campus as well as the opportunity to work together.


Walsh asked the Chair to briefly explain the reason that emerged from the committee surrounding the issue of representation.


Walkuski explained that the committee had to tackle several issues, one looking at the number of students at different schools, plus voting faculty, which includes professional staff as well as voting faculty.Along with the Parliamentarian they looked at other SUNY institutions and took those models into consideration using a complex math formula where some senators served only for a year. He said they discussed how to set up a Senate based on numbers of students and faculty along with the School of Education, which has a large number of adjuncts. They studied how they could equitably allow for representation as much as possible.His understanding was that they couldn�t come up with a one vote model, otherwise professionals would have larger representation and outnumber the various schools. He offered that there is no magic solution, but some slight modification from what already existed in the handbook which would be palatable to the faculty.


Walsh reiterated that the consequence was primarily because of distribution of students.


Walkuski replied that distribution is difficult to do, because if you look at Arts and Sciences, some people take Gen Ed with Professional Studies faculty, and the process becomes more complicated. He felt this was the best compromise based on the feedback his committee had.


Walsh asked about the at large position which would allow for more representation for certain segments of faculty on campus not involved in governance which has been a major problem in the past.With this model it would take into consideration Arts and Sciences who handle a substantial number of students. He also pointed out our Arts and Sciences Department handle a large no of faculty compared to other schools and this would keep their number intact.He also felt that Professional Studies gains and so professionals.He did add, however, that in years past before the changeover on the professional line, several constituents came to him and said that a full time coach representative would desire that coaches to participate, but academic faculty will still maintain majority vote.He explained that instead of plying with numbers of faculty, we can represent the number of senate at a reasonable level. This doesn�t increase the number very much, he guessed, maybe by 6.


Ed Caffarella asked if all elections would take place at the same time and Walkuski explained that all would be on the same cycle except for Education whose elections would come up on alternate years.


There were no more questions and the chair called for a roll call vote. Walsh asked if this didn�t require 5 senate votes and the chair explained that the chair could also call for a roll call vote.


The motion carried [SEE Senate Actions above]


Walkuski explained that he would speak for the committee that he appreciated the faculty�s support. Ballots would be mailed out in two days and in meantime e-mails would be sent to voting faculty so the issue can be resolved.


XV. NEW BUSINESS: Chair Walkuski distributed documents regarding the Presentation Skills Proposal as put forth by Dr. Robert Spitzer which will be discussed and voted on at the next Senate meeting.He explained that there has been a Sandwich Seminar on this issue and this has been done in conjunction with the GE committee.There are two documents..


XIV. STUDENT REPORTS:Matt Barone reported that SGA is revising their constitution and asked for campus feedback. He contacted Dave Kreh who worked with them in the past when they rewrote their constitution to assist them if he is willing. Dan Walker reported that the Peer Tutoring program on campus needed volunteers and asked for faculty recommendations.Chair Walkuski clarified that this was a general call and not specific to which Walker applied in the affirmative.




The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 PM


Respectfully submitted,


Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary


The following reports are appended to the Minutes in the order they are submitted by Senators and other members.


(1) Administration�s report to the Senate submitted by Dr. Bitterbaum.


(2) Proposed Presentation Skills Requirement submitted by Dr. Spitzer on behalf of Chair Walkuski.


(3) SUNY Cortland Faculty Senate Special Committee on Restructuring