October 11, 2005

1. CALL TO ORDER: The 3rd meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2005-2006 was called to order at 1:15 PM on October 11 in the Corey Union Exhibition Lounge by Chair Joseph Rayle.

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

D. Driscoll, D. Berger, R. Spitzer, G. Zarate, D. West, L. Anderson, J. Casciani, J. Governali,

J. Hendrick, K. Rombach, S. Stratton, B. Griffen, D. Ritchie, S. VanEtten, N. Tirado, M. Gerty, M. K. Boland, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell, W. Shaut, B. Kissel, J. Cottone, G. Clarke,

D. Kreh

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Phillips, R. Franco, P. Buckenmeyer

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

E. Caffarella


The minutes from September 27 were approved.


The Senate approved the EPC recommendations: 1) Proposed Structure and Operation of the General Education Committee as part of the Faculty Senate as recommended as part of the General Education Committee and the Educational Policy Committee; 2) Final Draft of Guidelines (Draft 5) Approved by the EPC in May 2005 {SEE OLD BUSINESS} (PASSED)


Chairman Rayle opened by welcoming everyone to the Senate. He announced that the Senate was up and running, having successfully filled vacant seats, and could start its business. He said that the Senate, in collaboration with UUP, would hold a joint sandwich seminar the following day entitled, "Participate or Die," entailing what UUP and the Senate have to offer, with Larry Ashley also in attendance. In addition, he announced, they would be handing out a Robert�s Rules of Orders pamphlet to aid Senators in their involvement in faculty governance.


No report.


Secretary Rayl reported that Barbara Kissel is doing an excellent job on the minutes. There was a hearty round of applause.

D. Berger referred to the newly elected senators and asked if they could be accommodated in any way possible and the Recording Secretary replied in affirmation.


DeGouff reported that the Senate checking account balance is $1203.07 as of October 6, including a check received but not deposited, bringing the total anticipated amount up to $1213.07.

Rayle asked if that amount would cover the Faculty Senate scholarship and the Treasurer responded that it would at least fund it for the fall semester.


President Bitterbaum announced that the campus, along with the nation, would be facing an energy crisis this winter. He reported further that because of a mistake NYMO made our electrical bill would be $700,000 more than expected. He said that projections right now are for a 1.3 million dollar cost for natural gas and oil with our energy budget being 2 million dollars more this coming spring. However, Bitterbaum stated that we will maintain the commitments that we have already made and that this increase was unexpected. The Vice President of Finance met with the Chancellor�s Office and asked if there could be any relief, along with prisons and other institutions, and the answer was a resounding "no." He said that we have been told we have "to do what it takes to get through this coming year." He stated that as a community we need to find out ways to economize by lowering temperatures in our buildings.

As for construction projects, the completion of Brockway is anticipated, with an end date of March 2006. The furniture will be moved in at the end of the summer. Furthermore, he stated, offices will be relocated from Studio West, with Institutional Advancement being moved to Brockway, and Graduate Studies relocated to allow for Professional Studies to utilize that space. Hopefully, Bitterbaum added, the project will be finished in time for students returning back to Cheney and DeGroat Halls during the summer.

The state controller is getting contracts out, but is late in signing all agreements. The Sperry contractor has been selected, constituting a two week period from the signing of the contract until work begins, with the anticipated start date sometime in November.

The Friends of the Library met this past weekend, the President reported, with nice donations being received. He explained that library budgets have gone up fast due to the rising cost of paper and journals.

This past weekend the Moseley Room on Raquette Lake was dedicated, thanks to the Sisters of Beta Phi, who raised $50,000 in honor of Dr. Louise Moseley, the first Director of Women�s Athletics, and one of the founders of Adapted PE. Bitterbaum announced great pride in this contribution.

Due to the recent hurricanes, an initiative is being taken towards emergency preparedness as facilities on campus are looking for ways of better management in times of crisis. The President said this is an outcome of having analyzed the breakdown in communications during Hurricane Katrina and Bitterbaum said that we have to use other means of communications such as satellites to be better prepared in the future.

The President reported that Provost Davis-Russell and Academic Affairs are looking at our first year programs and the Foundations of Excellence.

The college is also working with Dan McNeil on the Main Street project, including American Democracy.

Mission Review II is being worked on with our Memorandum of Understanding, along with a very aggressive budget as it goes forward this year.


D. Ritchie pointed out to the President that library budgets have risen comparatively to library costs.

The President concurred, and also pointed out the $25,000 the Provost donated to the Library from her budget. Bitterbaum said that the library acquisition�s budget has been fully allocated for this year with everything budgeted being spent for electronic resources and videos and very few monitors. He also reminded the Senate of the $100,000 earmarked from Senator Seward for the library.

D. Berger made an inquiry, as Chair of the Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee. He reported that he had been told by people who attended the portfolio session regarding personnel matters that there is a pending change involving publications and journals over a period of six years for tenure, involving outside peer review for promotion. He told Bitterbaum that he hasn�t received anything in writing about this change, and he was checking on the status.

Bitterbaum responded as to the history, that since moving to a 3/3 workload, they have been told by SUNY system, as well as all four research institutions, that in moving from assistant professor to associate and associate to full professor we must use outside evaluators. The community colleges were told that many of the college comprehensive colleges are moving towards that. Salins said that he wants us to move in that direction and pilot such a program which will be included in our Memorandum of Understanding, which has not been verified yet. We are starting with reviewing promotions from associate professorships to full, bringing in outside evaluators as part of the discussion. Bitterbaum explained Salins� thinking that only people who are in a like colleges have true understanding of someone else in that position and could bring value to the discussion. He concluded by saying that we are waiting for confirmation from the system and also encouraged the Provost to respond.

Provost Davis-Russell added that the topic of outside external peer reviewers has been brought up over the years at the Joint Chair�s Council, although not well received. She said each year when the campus submitted the Memorandum of Understanding, Salins said the system could no longer accept our position that we are not going to comply, so a compromise was employed, to pilot this initiative, beginning with promotion for full professor. She further explained that this was taken to the Joint Chair�s Council at one meeting last year where the group was divided on the issue. She explained, however, that now we have no choice in the matter. She stressed that including external reviewers in the promotion process for full professor was a compromise in that the system expects us to move forward.

The Provost addressed the misunderstanding about the reference to publications, that this is not a change in policy. She said if you read the handbook, there are number of things listed under criteria used for scholarship, and further stated that across the three schools there are minimum standards which have been set that are acceptable. Although there are variations according to departments, some require more than others as far as publications, however, this is a minimum expectation across the board. Provost Davis-Russell said two summers ago this was discussed, in light of the existing workload, to be a peer review evaluation every two years, in trying to arrive at some common understanding of expectations through our departments.

President Bitterbaum added that the hope is to utilize peer reviewers using like institutions such as Fredonia or New Paltz, indicating "someone with true understanding of the college that we are. " He also mentioned expectations, using the example of what would be required of an artist compared to a scientist, and hoped for a broadness as far as documentation of scholarship.

The Provost mentioned that because of the decrease to a 3/3 workload faculty coming in prior to that time have not been held to this.

The President reported that how you would compare a book to a publication or a chapter has to be worked out between the Chairs, Deans and the Provost.

Berger asked that it be brought up as an agenda item at a future Faculty Senate meeting.

Rombach asked how long the pilot program would be evaluated and for how long?

Provost Davis-Russell responded that "pilot" is actually the wrong term because this is actually being incorporated into the process. She said the campus would begin with promotion at the full professor level and now that we have submitted our Memorandum of Understanding we are waiting to hear the response before things are fully worked out.

Rombach asked how this will transfer into reappointment matters as well?

The Provost responded that at the Joint Chair�s Council some people thought this was a good thing while others did not. She reported that there are comprehensive campuses already involved in the process and that our campus can no longer say we don�t want to do this.

Rombach asked how we determine who the external reviewers would be?

The Provost responded that we are waiting to see what the Memorandum of Understanding will state.

The President reminded everyone that, hopefully, outside reviewers would be requested from like institutions. He further stated that since we are the biggest system based on student body we want to be the premier system in the nation and the best way to document that is through the research that is being undertaken on campus.

R. Spitzer responded that this is a pretty common practice and has been for some time now. He said it has been discussed on this campus for years and that it raises a host of questions far more complex than utilizing outside evaluators. Spitzer said that he understands that we are obligated to do this due to our Memorandum of Understanding and that it is not at all common, however, he expressed concern over whether the issue could be treated separately.

The Provost said that, as she receives materials from other departments across the campus she sees that each department has established its own expectations, and many far exceed what is being required here. She further stated that no department on campus has no expectations for scholarship. She was surprised at the comments she has heard. She says this may indicate that some departments don�t have the same expectations for scholarship. Provost Davis-Russell ended by saying that in almost five years here she has not seen evidence of what Spitzer suggested during her time here, but it was possible that it could be treated separately.

D. Ritchie pointed out, as a librarian hat being involved in a department with academic faculty that has worked out their own policies and procedures regarding appointment, the librarians do as other departments do on campus in setting up various types of ways of demonstrating scholarship. He mentioned Board of Trustee policies which state various criteria for promotion and continuing appointment and said, "We�ve done our best within our discipline to make it realistic for our faculty to attain the levels we think appropriate."

The Provost said in response, "Let me just disavow you of any notion that this is a single unilateral imposition by the Provost. This was a collective decision arrived at by the Deans, Associate Deans and Provost....so when you say imposed this on departments, perhaps the Deans present can speak to some of that, because this was a discussion we had for two years and was not a unilateral decision that the Provost made, but a collective decision."

Ritchie asked if the library was included in the discussion at any time?

The Provost responded that P. Warnken was included in the Retreat where it was discussed, representing the library position.

Ritchie asked if Warnken had brought the matter up regarding the library�s expectations.

R. Olsson said, in reference to published articles, that publications mean much more than articles, with two in relationship to an overall movement from 4/4 to 3/3. He further stated that in light of the workload there was not an attempt to decrease the workload of faculty, but to increase opportunities for scholarly research and publication. Olsson said the expectations could consist of articles or chapters. He didn�t feel that the expectations are too high and expressed that it is an attempt to assist faculty coming in to know what the Deans, Provost and departments expect of them as they move through the system to eliminate guesswork.

President Bitterbaum mentioned that as a Vice President for a decade he experienced musicians and librarians sharing a variety of different ways in proving scholarship as opposed to what he himself as a scientist would submit, addressing it as an attempt for breadth as well as depth. He stated that although the variables haven�t been worked out he has always been amazed at how creative, but yet in essence comparable, the review process is.

J. Casciani said that he became a department chair in 1990 and in his experience it has always been difficult for him to explain to faculty what expectations are because they are not clear. He said it varied depending on who served on various personnel committees. He said this is an attempt at fairness here in baseline consistency but it doesn�t mean that this is all that is expected of you, but at least the expectation is clear and faculty don�t have to submit to the pressure to interpret some kind of vague guidelines on the part of department chairs.

The Provost added to what Casciani said that she hears consistently from faculty that the expectations are unclear. She also elaborated further as to what Ollson said that this is not a departure in what is listed in the handbook, but that what is being discussed is all things listed in the handbook under scholarship. She said, "We are doing this as a baseline of expectation so that someone from one department may be required to do more or less than someone from another area." Provost Davis-Russell indicated that making clear the expectations also helps faculty so that they can gauge their progress. In addition to this structure to assist them, the Provost reported that Amy Henderson-Harr and Laura Gathigan will be working with faculty to help them develop five year programs working towards whatever goals they had set for themselves towards scholarship.

D. Berger said that this discussion had gone beyond what he had intended but felt that since it impinges on faculty governance and he would like to see it discussed at a future Faculty Senate meeting.

Rayle invited Berger to the next Faculty Senate Steering Committee meeting where something could be more formalized and worked out in conjunction with the administration.

The Provost asked a point of clarification, if this impinges on faculty governance, who makes the final determination for standards of expectations of faculty?

Chairman Rayle expressed his consideration of this as a gray area.

R. Olsson declared that it is shared governance and that nobody gets tenured without the Dean�s and Provost�s approval, so the administration does get involved. He said most faculty want to know the dean�s expectations when they are hired since the dean makes recommendations to the President.. He said if you are suggesting anything else you are misleading them in terms of what�s going to happen.

Rayle indicated that he would talk about it at the sandwich seminar the following day. He encouraged the Senators to move on to Senate business since they were running out of time.


Vice President Mosser announced L. Anderson as the recipient of the "Polar Bear Award" for her bravery this past weekend at Raquette Lake while at the Moseley dining room dedication where she was wind surfing in 30-40 degree weather in the driving rain "role modeling her passion for recreation and leisure."

Mosser announced that Pete Koryzno will be hosting the annual College Community Appreciation Awards dinner this Friday at 5 PM in the Corey Union Function Room with Linda Hartsock as this year�s honoree. He also reported that on October 26 the college will be hosting the joint Chamber of Commerce Business after Hours, with both Tompkins and Cortland Counties, at the Alumni House at 3:00 PM on October 26 and anyone is invited to come. The C-Club Athletic Hall of Fame induction dinner will be Saturday, October 29th. Later this week, he reported, we will be hosting 3 marketing firms who will be making a presentation to the President�s Cabinet. The President�s Council College Marketing Committee on resources will also be helping us to do market research.


Long Range Planning Committee - No report.

Educational Policy Committee � {SEE Old Business} Cottone reported that his committee is still lacking 4 voting members, two from Arts and Sciences and two from Education, one replacing Meg Richardson who is on sabbatical this semester.

Bitterbaum commented that it takes people with experience to contribute to what constitutes the making of this institution and he expressed he was perplexed that people are reluctant to contribute, since we need senior leadership. He encouraged people to give up their time to serve on other important committees as well, like the GE Committee, citing it as a "good example of institution for generations."

Cottone suggested that maybe the Faculty Senate needs to offer its support by appointing members from different areas.

Student Affairs Committee - No report.

Faculty Affairs Committee - G. Clarke reported that his committee has met and he was elected chair.

The Provost said she had met with the Faculty Affairs Committee and submitted a request. She asked Clarke if he knew where the committee is in addressing the request?

Clarke said it was discussed at the last meeting where some thought was put into statements about requirements in portfolios during the review process involving faculty at various stages. He said the attempt is to make the portfolios similar in structure. He further stated that the first thing the committee did was to review the handbook. He stated that, since there are two vacancies on the committee, it would help if they had a full component. He also expressed that another committee used as a model indicated that it could take two years to review the process and suggested that this may take somewhat longer than the Provost�s anticipated, a time line which may be unrealistic.

The Provost made a correction, that the request is not what Clarke indicated. She said, "We are not looking to make portfolios across all schools similar....we have asked the committee to address inconsistencies with personnel policies in the handbook." She reported that the handbook is inconsistent and outlines one thing in one place, and something contradictory in another.

G. Levine asked if Clarke could forward any handbook changes to her so that she could see that they get into the new handbook when it is revised.

Prus added that there are also areas regarding portfolios and other concerns that are ambiguous and asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to address those as well.

College Research Committee - No report.

General Education Committee - No report.

Long Range Planning Committee - Ritchie reported that the LRPC committee will be meeting the Thursday and they are looking for representation from Fine Arts and Humanities. He also announced that SGA has said they will be looking for members to fill student vacancies.



Committee on Committees - No report.


Chairman Rayle introduced the old business which consisted of two EPC Proposals: 1) Proposed Structure and Operation of the General Education Committee as part of the Faculty Senate as recommended as part of the General Education Committee and the Educational Policy Committee; 2) Final Draft of Guidelines (Draft 5) Approved by the EPC in May 2005.

R. Spitzer mentioned a discussion at the last meeting where it was reported that there was a joint effort between the EPC and GE Committees to propose structure and operation that would recognize the GE Committee as part of the Faculty Senate. He asked a question about guidelines regarding the GE Committee and asked about wording in the catalog which he felt was ambiguous. He said, "Does the GE Committee report to the Faculty Senate or is it reporting to the EPC Committee?"

J. Governali responded that the GE committee reports to the Faculty Senate.

Rayle confirmed that it would be made a standing committee.

Spitzer asked for clarification on item "2d" at the bottom of the handout, referring to making recommendations and was wondering if that was the intention as to wording, having to do with policy?

Governali responded that the Faculty Senate recommendations regarding policies go to the Faculty Senate first, and that changes in procedures are also included in requests from the GE committee. He said that the EPC Committee would not make a policy recommendation to the Faculty Senate until the GE Committee has made a recommendation to the Faculty Senate.

Rayle said it was an effort to coordinate that what the two committees are doing.

Governali stressed that this is an attempt so that there are not two policy committees coming out of the Faculty Senate.

Hendrick pointed out, for clarification, that GE deals with curriculum as well as all college curriculum, whereas anything regarding change of policy is sent to the EPC Committee. She stated that this is in line with other committees.

Spitzer asked if one wanted to add a new GE category, would the proposal go to the GE Committee alone or both committees, and how would this happen in terms of sequence?

Governali referred to letter "c" in response as to the recommendation to the Faculty Senate.



No new business.


D. Berger introduced Paula Quaglio, Senator from Social and Behavioral Sciences, Robert Spitzer, Karla Alwes, Donne West and German Zarate, Senators from Arts and Sciences. He also mentioned Terry Wood Secretary from the Department of Psychology who ran the Arts and Sciences elections and did an outstanding job.

Rambach introduced Susan Stratton from the School of Education.

There was a hearty round of applause for all the newly inducted Senators.



SGA President and student senator Mary Kate Boland announced that Student Government is working on the ASC meal plan which was discussed last year, an increase in the technology fee, and problems students are having with computers. She also announced that their office manager Chris Bennett retired after 13 years, and asked anyone who saw her to wish her luck.

M. King said he had a student who had a computer that was virtually incapacitated and informed that Hallnet does not fix student computers anymore and told to take it downtown for repairs. King expressed that "this is an absolute outrage," and asked if there was someone who could help. He also inquired whether Academic Computing be involved in remedying the situation?

The President indicated that he would talk to Paula Warnken about the matter.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:20PM

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) EPC Proposals: 1) Proposed Structure and Operation of the General Education Committee as part of the Faculty Senate as recommended as part of the General Education Committee and the Educational Policy Committee; 2) Final Draft of Guidelines (Draft 5) Approved by the EPC in May 2005


The Faculty Senate gratefully acknowledges the President's Office for providing refreshments.