���� FACULTY SENATE

��������� � ����������������������������������� ������MINUTES # 13

��������������������� ������������������������� ��������April 25, 2006

 

CALL TO ORDER: The 13th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2005-2006 was called to order at 1:15 PM on April 25, 2006 in the PER Park Center Hall of Fame Room by Chair Joseph Rayle.

 

SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Rayle, M. King, S. Raul, C. DeGouff,

D. Driscoll, D. Berger, P. Quaglio, R. Spitzer, D. West, L. Anderson, J. Governali,

J. Hendrick, K. Rombach, B. Griffen, D. Sidebottom, V. Marty, B. Tobin, D. Ritchie,

S. VanEtten, T. Phillips, P. Schroeder, N. Tirado, J. Clark, S. Brown, E. Bitterbaum,

E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, J. Cottone, G. Clarke, D. Ritchie, D. Kreh, P. Buckenmeyer

 

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Zarate, K. Alwes, J. Casciani, S. Stratton, J. Sitterly, W. Shaut, G. Avery

 

GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, N. Aumann, J. Mosser, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson,

M. Prus, E. Caffarella, Y. Murnane, M. Yacavone, D. Margine, C. Vanderkarr, D. Harms, D. Barclay, B. Rivest, D. Miller, S. Coonrad, A. Cute, R. Caban, L. Simmons

 

I. SENATE ACTIONS:

There was a vote to endorse the recommendations of the GE Committee regarding restructuring of the SUNY Cortland GE Program {for faculty referendum} (Passed)

 

II. CHAIR�S REPORT:

J. Rayle opened the Senate meeting by explaining that the Fast Track item on the agenda for the meeting would not be discussed since it had already been clarified and dealt with elsewhere.� Chairman Rayle also welcomed long-time Senator Bill Griffen back saying, �rumors of his demise have been greatly exaggerated.�� There was a generous round of applause for Dr. Griffen.

 

The minutes from April 11, 2006 were approved.

 

III. VICE CHAIR�S REPORT:

No report.

 

IV.� SECRETARY�S REPORT:

No report.

 

V. TREASURER�S REPORT:

The Secretary reported the balance in the Faculty Senate account is $853.07.

 

VI. PRESIDENT�S REPORT:

President Bitterbaum opened his report by saying, �We want to thank the community who responded in such a magnificent way on behalf of our students and the college.�� He explained that the college will be holding an appreciation reception for the fire department and Cortland community, as well as the college community, on May 11 at 3 PM. He said anyone who would like to may come and all are welcome.

 

The President further reported that he had just gotten off the telephone with Steve Hunt. The Assembly has overridden the financial budgets for the Governor and at the time it was in the Senate. Bitterbaum expressed concern regarding the compromise that would need to take place, hopefully, in our favor.

 

The work continues at Dowd Fine Arts and the Memorial Library.� The parking lot project will be started and the campus has resolved the issue with the city and the cemetery board. The college will be breaking ground this June to provide an estimated 115-120 spaces.

 

President Bitterbaum explained that there was a presentation of the Facilities Masterplan and reported on the Mission of Understanding between the state and ourselves of which he was pleased.

 

The college has hired a company named Citimax which works with educational institutions. They came to SUNY Cortland and visited with over 100 people and learned that ,�SUNY Cortland may well be one of Cortland�s best kept secrets,� he reported.� He further declared, �SUNY Cortland is doing a lot of things right.�� The President indicated that he thought awareness of this was weak and market research will bring seriousness of SUNY Cortland into sharper focus.� He said, �I am pleased to know people view us as a hidden gem.� He reported that in the first time, possibly in our history, that we went over 10,000 applications in a month with the total being 10,080 applications. He indicated that the data in the New York Times shows that only 150 schools out of 4,000 accept less than 50% of applicants and we are one of them.� He said, �We are very hopeful that sometime next year�we will have Citimax present to Cortland.�

 

S. Brown asked when the work at the Memorial Library will be done which may be a distraction to students studying for final exams.

 

The President responded, �Good question. Is it noisy right now?�

 

Brown replied that he didn�t know personally but thought it might be a problem.

 

Bitterbaum indicated that crews were working on the roof.

 

D. Ritchie said, �There is occasional noise because they had to rip off lead sheets around the outside before they rip off the roof. So, there is noise from time to time. We can certainly ask the contractor. Are we only talking through the exam period?�

 

S. Brown indicated that students are studying up until the last day.

 

Bitterbaum responded, �Partly there�s an expense. I�ll be happy to go over and see how noisy it is.��

 

J. Rayle indicated that he was in the library on the 4th floor the previous day and although you can hear the noise he felt it was not noticeably loud and would not present any problems.�

 

President Bitterbaum suggested that the issue be worked out with Gail Wood, Library Director.

 

D. Ritchie also offered another suggestion to use the upper floors because the first floor is the noisiest.

 

VII. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

 

Long Range Planning Committee � No report.

 

Educational Policy Committee � No report.

 

Student Affairs Committee � No report.

 

Faculty Affairs Committee � G. Clarke reported that his committee met on April 12 and completed their report in response to the November 1, 2005 charge from the Senate, the deadline for which is April 17th.

 

College Research Committee � No report.�

 

General Education Committee � {SEE Old Business}

 

VIII. SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT:�

No report.

 

IX. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

 

Committee on Committees � D. Kreh clarified the nominations for elected positions through Committee on Committees.�

 

X. OLD BUSINESS:

The Cortland General Education Restructuring Proposal was discussed.� D. Berger opened the debate expressing some concerns that had been shared with him by various faculty having to do with an item he needed clarification on. He yielded the floor to Dave Miller to speak about the issue regarding Berger�s understanding that what was essentially being discussed involved mapping the present GE categories currently into SUNY categories, not talking necessarily as to what is in each category.

 

J. Rayle responded by saying, �That�s my understanding.�

 

D. Berger continued by saying, �I was pretty comfortable with that and it has come to my attention that that is true. But two incidences that I am concerned about has to do with definition of category number 11, which is science and human affairs or technology,

then the other one is the natural science category.� What my colleagues called my attention to in those two instances, contrary to my understanding to what the Provost�s charge was, the category criteria changed. It changed in a way that made an impact on something I am very, very concerned about as a person who has an extension background in science, having gone to a special science high school, and also being a Physics major before I switched to Psychology and Earth Science.� I need some questions answered if I could yield to a couple of colleagues to fill us in on what our concerns are.�

 

B. Rivest introduced himself and he shared his concerns, along with Dave Miller, which represent his own department. He commended the GE Task Force and GE Committee for their contribution in merging the Cortland program with the SUNY program to arrive at a single numbering system to simplify things.� He then commented on some of the problems some faculty found troubling going back to the Provost�s Task Force. He said one of the guiding forces of the Task Force was to maintain the academic integrity of the intellectual foundation of the Cortland degree. He stated that the GE Committee additionally states in its recommendation the supposed restructured Cortland GE proposal is a de-facto program completed by students at present and no new program has been added or existing requirements removed.� He indicated the second part is true, that there have been no added requirements or nothing has been reduced, but the first sentence �the proposed restructured program is the de-facto program� is not and can be construed as such. He said the restructured program is not the same and differences need to be highlighted and consequences understood.� Two significant differences that he is aware of, one is in the GE 12 category, science and technology in society, which used to be called science technology in human affairs. The direction that has been expanded is troubling, he felt.� He stated that he was on the GE Committee in the 80�s having arrived here then when the program was being voted on and implemented. Rivest said in reference to category number 7, the rationale for that category was to better develop science literacy, so students would better understand what science can do and the impact science has on society. The courses in this category were not strictly science courses supposed to have a science component. He wanted to provide the concepts involved in the change in mission to this category. He said, �I want to direct your attention to another profound change in the science category. It has two courses that must meet three learning outcomes, recognized by those who comprehend the importance of understanding a minimum level of science literacy in our students.� The GE program restructuring proposal states that second course would only meet learning outcome number 3 which eliminates two of learning outcomes for one of the two GE courses. The GE Committee states that the broadening of some categories will add some courses to the GE program in bottleneck parts where there is a limited seats for students� The rationale needs to be clarified.� He indicated that according to the GE Task Force report that that since other SUNY institutions that meet requirements for Natural science suggests that these are courses we should offer here, he would argue that by following this model we would open the door to the lowest common denominator.� He said, �Cortland�s program does not have to be as liberal or weak as the SUNY requirements.� We can have stronger requirements�I ask the Senate to fully consider ramifications of these changes. I don�t think they are as superficial as they have been packaged.�

 

J. Rayle asked D. Barclay if he wanted to respond to Dr. Rivest. He asked Barclay for clarification that he felt it was true that GE 2 shortchanges science and literacy and would reduce certain learning outcomes? He asked if he felt this was an inaccurate or accurate statement and how he would address it?

 

D. Barclay responded, �Brian is right. Some categories have changed. It is in the eyes of the beholder as to whether significant changes substantially undermine categories.� The GE Committee didn�t think it substantially undermined the program, but I respect Brian�s point.� With GE 12 that is a significant bottleneck category. At this point we have too few courses on the books. Initially these changes broadened into ethics categories� as I look at category 12 right now the only significant difference of that category as to what is in the catalog today is it opens the door to science courses that are not historically in a social context�a course that examines value judgments or a course that looks at a scientific context. The changes in the second part of the catalog recognized theories and scientific perspectives that were developed. Any course in science and society crossover is a change but in my view that doesn�t substantially weaken the category.�

 

D. Berger replied, �As I understand it, Brian, the science category sophomore and lower courses with substantial background in the science and human affairs and technology and human affairs category, it is my understanding that people would take the other science first and then be able to appreciate the impact on society into the more advanced courses other than in the now or proposed category. But I think�would you like to speak about that? Our colleague David Miller, I�d like to yield to him.�

 

D. Miller said, �I have a long history with GE 7 early on in its inception, when I started in 1982. Basic Studies, our GE Program, and the real stars of the GE Program, as far as I am concerned were the P and D courses, that category, and the science and technology and human affairs. Essentially the GE 7 course was intended for, in most instances, upperclassmen who had the basics, as David indicated. Then it had a basis for which to take this higher level course. The GE 7 course has, as far as I am concerned, is one of the true opportunities for an interdisciplinary topic in course development at SUNY Cortland. I have not wanted to see its goals, assumptions, changed in any way. David Barclay and I had a long series of communications about the Task Force, pre-products, the final product and along the way he and the committee has been very gracious in terms of listening to concerns.� And, in fact, it has moved from what I would consider a radical change of the category to something that I still can�t live with, but is closer to the original GE 7. I don�t know how many of you have taught GE courses, most of you probably have. I don�t know how many of you have looked at the current science technology and human affairs category. The goal is for students to consider decisions in the context of complex relations that exist in science and math. The new SUNY GE 12 goal statement, the title of that the category is now science and technology values. The goal of this category is for students to reflect critically on problems, value based judgments, and issues that arise in the interface of science and sociology as a recommended change, a few learning outcomes as opposed to the 3 originals. The objective of the category are not stated. There isn�t any information. The issue has been raised as to the problem of offering up courses in this category. That is an issue. It�s not easy to develop a category that fits well into the existing GE 7 category but it is done, has been done, and can be done.� It�s really an issue of getting the resources.� That is the problem and should not be driving change in the category. It�s a separate issue.� We need to administratively move these courses to the creation of these courses. We have an instance, in my opinion, it is the tail biting the dog of change and I don�t support the restructuring proposal, the current GE Committee proposal. I urge you to vote against this. Send it back to the committee and give those teaching the GE 7 category an opportunity to meet with members of the GE Committee and come up with the resolution many of us want to see. That�s all. Thank you.

 

J. Governali said, �Just a couple of comments. I urge the Faculty Senate not to reject this proposal, as part of the task force here. The process of the Task Force is it did two surveys, two open hearings and the College Curriculum Committee did another survey. As for opposition in the category there has been ample opportunity for people to talk, raise issues, make suggestions, based on surveys. The goal of the task force was we tried to flush out the value piece which is always in there, the two part description of that category is a problem to keep both areas in, keep the science area in, keep the values area in. In my view, the science area was not a science category but a category designed to bring these ideas together. We made it clear as to the intent originally and the way it had evolved. The point which Brian made regarding courses that were listed there are different ways at looking at GE. Other colleges have looked at their program and found out different ways. At Potsdam they are working with the English Department to make a GE program that facilitates the Gen Ed Program in their department. That came up in the discussion as to the big elephant in the room. It came up with the A and P program�in two years we came up with all kinds of compromises, all kinds of discussion as how to deal with that area. Any changes that were in the categories weren�t intended to weaken them but to broaden the categories.� Dr. Governali asked David Barclay if, being on the General Education Committee, he had changed anything and if he had any comments that would cause him to change what the two committees came up with.

 

D. Barclay responded, �We acted on two changes based on our survey. We changed the name quantitative skills, discussed transfer on pg 3, went through all feedback, gave a two week deadline and made changes. We pretty much endorsed the proposal.�

 

J. Governali: �As for the campus, we still have a lot of disagreement. Having worked in the task force, our task was to try to get structure. The GE Committee, as David suggested, got together to try to change and modify categories, rather than throwing the whole thing out.�

 

J. Rayle said, �Let me understand, even if we do decide to accept this proposal, there still could be tweaking of definitions of categories?�

 

J. Governali stated, �The GE Committee can always do that.�

 

 

J. Rayle: �That venue is open. I just wanted to clarify that.�

 

J. Governali said, �A couple of suggestions. We should not remove a course�that was the responsibility of GE.�

 

R. Spitzer replied, �I appreciate Dave Miller�s comments. The new proposed category 12 the old category 7, the change being offered is incremental, a salutary change, not a harmful change. Although I don�t teach in it, category 12, it�s a subject of interest to me. its stated focus is on the interface of science and society��� I would only add, these categories are not carved in stone. They don�t represent what we think is the one best way of doing General Education. We do General Education here and do it very well here. We have done it better than other institutions for many years.� I think a degree of change being proposed is good. I think that reflects the thoughtful nature of the proposal as a whole.�

 

D. Berger responded, �I disagree with what Bob has said, to some extent.� I am very concerned about science literacy in the US.� I think it�s gone down dramatically since I was a young student and if we had done GE well then we shouldn�t go back to doing it less well.� This is, I don�t have Dave Miller�s permission to say this, but he came out of his sick bed to come here to say what he had to say today, talking to his colleagues. They are talking and they have a problem with this.�

 

J. Hendrick said, �I think if we each were to define General Education everyone would come up with a different definition. In my opinion, this restructuring proposal does have merits of the current GE program within the structure that SUNY requires for General Education.� At the same time, it will simplify graduation requirements for our students. It will make advisement easier for students as well as for advisors. I encourage my fellow senators to endorse this proposal. The sooner we move ahead, the sooner we can create new classes and stimulate it within the structure. We need to move ahead coming up with something that would not minimize Cortland General Education.� We do need to move ahead for the students, for advisement, and in my opinion this does not compromise what we have done.�

 

M. King said, �There are two issues here. One is to identify the two programs, the other is the modification of two or three of the categories. They are separate issues. One doesn�t depend on the other. I tend to agree with the science colleagues, the categories have been watered down, in effect, and they open up the possibility of courses that are significantly weaker in terms of science than the ones on the books. I, for one, really can�t support that.�

 

R. Spitzer stated, �It seems to me the purpose of the category is not to offer pure science. If I am studying evolution I would want a little of the biologist to study it. I don�t think we can understand the debate, evolution versus intelligent design, just by taking a biology course. You could understand the arguments but not why it�s an argument purely in the context of it as a science. For Political Scientists and historians, as well, there is a good argument to be made. There are other issues that come to my mind that represent the direct interaction between science and societal issues that bring in questions of religion and a whole host of other things.� Rather than frame it as a watering down of science or whether or not it has to do with politics of science, I mean politics, in a very broad sense, I think it�s a good thing and we should encourage it not narrow the focus.�

 

D. Margine responded, �In terms of watering down, also, I remember you made reference as to other SUNY institutions as a point of institutions, what do our other friends do? Where SUNY requirements for natural science is one course requirement, the GE Task Force and others want to maintain the integrity of science and keep local requirements the same in having our students have a traditional lab experience as well as depth and breadth. Some of our other SUNY institutions are keeping only one course requirements. Cortland decided on having two course requirements. It needs to be understood what we are maintaining here�the program is nothing different than how we have been doing it in the last 5-10 years with our current GE program.� You folks need to understand this has not been watered down. In maintaining further discussion as to how the category can be enhanced, to move the structure in this new restructured program for our students and advisors, the Registrar�s Office. When are we going to merge these two programs? �I seriously ask you to consider the merits of this program. It is a win, win situation for everyone.�

 

B. Rivest said, �I think Bob was talking specifically of the GE 12 category. I agree it�s not a scientific course. People can look at that from different sides. Donna you� right. We do have a unique requirement here. We have two science courses. The proposal is not the same as we have been doing. The second course could be significant. Some colleagues have looked at learning outcome number three. One could argue that a course in the GE 12 could also satisfy the second category, a third learning outcome in natural sciences.� I agree we need to come together and merge these two but for the question, �why are these two categories being changed? If you want to expand GE 12 make more seats.� Let�s recognize that. Changing the second category in natural sciences, make sure that it is a science course and not something else. What is the justification for that change?� Joe mentioned something that may have been one of the driving thoughts, to help someone in Professional Studies fulfill their graduation requirement with anatomy and physiology included in the GE program. There are other courses offered at our sister institutions that are included as natural sciences that would satisfy our requirements here. They have proposed anatomy and physiology be included as a GE course. Only one out of the five university centers accept A and P. Only two, Potsdam and Purchase, accept anatomy and physiology. Only one maritime technical college does include A and P, and only 3 Broome, Columbia Greene and FIT, out of 30 community colleges does not include A and P. So if you look at institutions, the A and P courses are more likely accepted at those colleges and institutions not as academically rigorous centers as our 4 year sister colleges. If you are looking at how are we opening that door, how are we changing, opening the door to these kinds of courses, trying to make it more vigorous, less rigorous, what goals are we accomplishing, accept renumbering. Go back to the original descriptions of one or both categories. See that as viable option.�

 

L. Anderson said, �I am in favor of the proposal. As far as concerns to broadening of the categories or a weakening, I think broadening is a very positive thing.�

 

D. Barclay said, �I Would just like to clarify, each GE category has a goal a set of assumptions and set of objectives and we reduced that to the goal and learning outcomes. In doing that for natural sciences we run into a specific problem. We don�t actually define what learning outcomes are met by those courses. In the current catalog, after completing both courses in the category, students will have completed all of the learning outcomes. Part of the change that came through was to clarify, in the current catalog it was kind of nebulous. The decision of the task force was to make the A course strict all credit, based on a courses that is a grounding in traditional math sci, bio, phys, chemics. Other courses like nutrition, acoustics of musical instrument, simply would not go into the A category. In my opinion anatomy and physiology would not fit as a depth and breadth course. The current catalog has a B category, which you define as a breath and depth category with greater exposure to natural science. One of the intents of task force in making these changes was to clarify how specific courses would meet this learning outcome. The change of focus, how we are actually defining all of the categories, change for that reason.�

 

The Provost said, �Mention has been made of the tail wagging the dog. I would like to state emphatically that the need for courses should not be driving the debate. The decision should be made on restructuring of the GE program. It was never a part of the charge that I gave to the Task Force which then went to the Curriculum Committee and the focus should be on the intellectual integrity of what we do and need which is outside and should be outside of the debate and this discussion.�

 

J. Rayle indicated the Senate had three options, to vote the proposal up or down and/or also require that the proposal go to a full referendum for the faculty.��

 

M. Prus stated, �I would like to add to what the Provost just said.� In comments others have made previously it seems to be a conneciton as to what is percevied as a broadening of categories and needs to general curriculum development and to add courses to alleviate bottlenecks. Many of the speakers were absolutely correct, it leads to the case of the natural science category. There hasn�t been a bottleneck. There are sufficient A and B courses to accommodate our students.� I think that the connection between broadening as perceived of categories and development of new courses in order to create more opportunities for students is specious in some respects. There is another sense in which broadening of categories is being done to accommodate the needs of students.� That is that by creating or defining the second category as one in which students would reveive additional breadth and depth in the science disciplines and not have four hour lab requirements and a traditional grounding in one of the natural sciences we have attempted to create opportunities for transfer students to meet that part of their science requirement. And in doing so we would not impede their graduation more than we already do. I think Donna can probably address that as well if she wants to.� As professor Governali pointed, out the work of the task force was one in which over two years time there were significant compromises made and that was one that was considered.�

 

D. Berger said, �This is a parliamentary inquiry. We have choices as to what we can do, as my colleagues mentioned. The other week I asked about it and I thought I heard you say we were going to make a recommendation at the Faculty Senate and then it was automatically going to go to referendum.�

 

J. Rayle responded, �My intention is I hope we send this to referendum. I guess we could send it to referendum with the recommendation that it be endorsed, or not be endorsed, or just send it referendum. I think this is big enough that faculty need to vote on it.�

 

D. Berger said, �Another option I am inquiring about, I heard what Dr. Governali said and others about not delaying this that it needs to be done. What about amendments which would be, in effect do what Brian suggested, accept the thing but change it so we use the current present GE designations with regards to categories as far as the prior criteria with regards to categories?�

 

J. Rayle said, �I think the focus here is on the structure of the thing not so much what courses wind up in what GE categories, the mechanism for which that would happen is the GE Committee. That is where that battle would take place. What we�re looking at right now is the general proposal.�

 

J. Rayle said, �You can amend that. We could do that if you all want to. That�s a potential thing here. I�m not sure�let me go around the room.�

 

Dr. Spitzer said, �Last week I said I thought the college handbook said if there was a proposal to add a category or requiring a change in categories of GE it is required to go to a faculty referendum, I was mistaken, incredible as it would seem.� Having said that I think it would be a good idea to send it to referendum.�

 

D. Kreh said, �Regardless of what the Senate does, vote yes or no or amend, once that�s concluded it is up to the senate. Whether or not someone wishes to move, in fact, the referendum be conducted, if that is moved, it is either voted up or down and the sequence follows.�

 

J. Hendrick said, �I think it�s important for us to realize that�these proposed 12 categories, ten of which are really met with SUNY General Education categories, are framed around SUNY learning outcomes. And it is through SUNY�s learning outcomes that the college will need to assess our General Education courses. In some cases we have made our SUNY learning outcomes more than SUNY�s, which is fine. We do need to make sure that at least the first ten at satisfy the SUNY�s definitions.� For us to tweak those we have to be very careful. It took two years of work. Be careful by keeping the intent of what the categories are and making sure that these meet SUNY�s student learning outcomes, if it�s a SUNY category. I would encourage us not to touch them at this point. The Task Force took great care in trying to do that. It could hurt us in the long run in getting courses in there that SUNY will be addressing that don�t meet those outcomes.�

 

J. Governali said, �I would disagree. I hope we don�t start tinkering with this. We have the structure. Let the GE Committee deal with GE 12.� What Dave (Miller) is talking about, if he or anyone feels that that category needs to be changed, they can go to the GE Committee and push for change in that category in title and description.� A lot of things can be done. As Joy has stated, the GE Committee looked at it. There are lots of issues involved that we can�t handle, that we can�t focus on at this time. Those can be handled by discipline by the GE Committee once approved. They are not carved in stone and can be changed in the future. We are trying to vote on the structure.� We can work with that and can facilitate transfer credit. The changes in category 2 are in transfer credit. Some of us forget the fact that we are not a Northeastern elite institution where 95% of the students stay for four years and graduate. Half of our students are transfer students.� By the time they graduate we have to make sure we have programs that facilitate progress. one of the things we try to maintain is the integrity of the program.

 

J. Rayle said, �Do you think the GE structure is sufficient to maintain the integrity that people think surround the issues about science courses. Do you think that is sufficient to take care of that?

 

J. Governali stated, �We still have 2 course requirements not required by SUNY. We argued about this and compromised almost from the first day we started the meeting, the science and technology categories still have the same two options that students can take. That�s the way it�s been. We haven�t changed it.� What has changed and what Brian is talking about is requiring the 3rd learning outcome rather than all three learning outcomes and that was to facilitate transfer credit.�

 

L. Anderson said, �I am not on the GE Task Force nor on the GE Committee. But as a faculty member at Cortland I had ample opportunity to provide input. I went to the open meetings and have written feedback that this document supports and have been part of the voice of faculty over two years. To tinker now and make amendments for a few voices denies the whole process that happened over two years. If people choose to participate all along I think they would have felt the same way I do right now.�

 

J. Rayle encouraged those Senators with new input to speak.�

 

N. Aumann said, �Having been latecomer to both GE, the task force and GE Committee, I am impressed by the amount of work and the level of commitment, feedback and various compromises. If you separate the two it comes down to trusting your colleagues and provides a framework or a skeleton. When it comes down to implementation that is up to the GE Committee. We have to trust in our colleagues in proposing courses for the GE Committee. As far as academic integrity we rely on each other. I am a Sociologist and I rely on my colleagues for expertise.�

 

Seth Brown called the question.

 

J. Rayle brought the motion to close the debate and then reminded everyone they were voting on whether or not to endorse this proposal motion is in order,

 

An unknown individual said there was a motion is on the floor

 

D. Berger called for a roll call vote.

 

J. Rayle said, �So the motion we�re looking at is whether to endorse.�

 

D. Kreh said, �We are voting on that with a roll call vote. The secretary should

call the role and indicate yes or no on the roll.�

 

J. Rayle stated, �You are voting on whether or not to endorse the report with a roll call vote.�

 

J. Rayle said, �Yes is for, no is against.�

 

D. Ritchie said, �Abstain is also an option.��

 

D. Kreh responded, �Abstention is a useless option.�

 

There was a roll call vote by the Secretary, Susan Rayl, as follows:��

 

����������������������� Yes������������������������������ No������������������������������ Abstain

�����������������������������������������������

����������� �� Susan Rayl��������������� ����� David Berger��������� ������� D. Driscoll

����������� � �Colleen deGouff������� ���� �Donna West

����������� � �Paulo Quaglio����������� ��� ��Mel King

����������� � �Robert Spitzer

����������� �� Lynn Anderson

����������� ��Joe Governali

����������� ��Joy Hendrick

����������� ��Kim Rombach

���������� ���Bill Griffen

���������� ���Dan Sidebottom

���������� ���Virginia Marty

��������� ����Brian Tobin

��������� ���David Ritchie

��������� ���Shawn VanEtten

��������� ���Tim Phillips

���� ��������Pam Schroeder

�������� ����Nicole Tirado

������� �����Jason Clark

������ ������Seth Brown

 

The vote was 19 for; 3 against; and 1 abstention.

 

R. Spitzer said, �Mr. Chairman, I vote that the aforementioned be sent to a faculty referendum with the recommendation that it be endorsed.�

 

D. Ritchie asked, �What is the timeline for the referendum?�

 

J. Rayle replied, �As soon as possible. I�ll talk to the Committee on Committees to get this thing going. We �ain�t� got a lot of semester left.�

 

D. Ritchie asked, �Any policy has to be done by a certain time?�

 

D. Kreh stated, �The quicker the better.�

 

D. Berger asked, �Can it be done next yea? We have a different senate.�

 

J. Rayle said, �We Could do some parliamentary things if we have to do get it done.�

 

D. Ritchie asked, �Who id eligible to vote?�

 

J. Rayle responded, Voting faculty as defined in the handbook.�

 

XI. NEW BUSINESS:

There was no new business.

 

XIII. STUDENT SENATOR�S REPORTS:

N. Tirado reported that the past weekend was the Student Assembly in Saratoga Springs, New York where resolutions were passed which opposed line vetoes by Governor Pataki. She also distributed a handout regarding a resolution regarding diversity requesting that diversity be included in the curriculum. She explained that it is very broad based which the student assembly felt strongly about.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 PM

Respectively Submitted,

 

Barbara Kissel

Staff Assistant/

Recording Secretary

 

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

 

(1) Cortland General Education Restructuring Proposal, D. Barclay, Chair, GE Committee.

 

(2) Memo to the Student Assembly of the State University of New York from Steven King, diversity Director, SUNY Student Assembly regarding Diversity and Inclusion in the College Curriculum, N. Tirado, Student Senator.

 

http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes.min13.html