November 1, 2005

I. CALL TO ORDER: The 4th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2005-2006 was called to order at 1:15 PM on November 1, 2005 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, P. Quaglio, G. Zarate, D. West, K. Alwes, L. Anderson, J. Casciani,

J. Governali, J. Hendrick, K. Rombach, S. Stratton, D. Sidebottom, J. Sitterly, V. Marty,

B. Tobin, D. Ritchie, J. Governali, T. Phillips, P. Schroeder, N. Tirado, M. Gerty, M. K. Boland, E. Bitterbaum, R. Franco, W. Shaut, B. Kissel, J. Cottone, G. Clarke, D. Kreh

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Spitzer, B. Griffen, S. VanEtten,

P. Buckenmeyer

GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, N. Aumann, J. Mosser, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson, E. Caffarella, J. Barry, D. Barclay, E. McCabe, S. Coonord, M. Canfield


The Minutes from October 11 were approved as amended.


There was a motion to approve referring the student resolution regarding Corey Union classrooms to the subcommittee for the Facilities and Master Plan Oversight Committee. (Passed)

There was a motion to postpone the student resolution regarding Hallnet until the next meeting (Passed)

There was a motion to approve the Committee on Committees recommendation {SEE Committee on Committees Report} (Passed)

There was a motion to approve the charge to the Faculty Affairs Committee, as amended, regarding academic department review and criteria pertaining to scholarly activities (Passed)


The Chair opened by welcoming everyone to the Faculty Senate. He asked new Senators K. Alwes, G. Marty and D. West to raise their hands and introduce themselves. Rayle reported that he had recently attended the SUNY System wide Senate meeting in Saratoga Springs along with T. Phillips. He further announced that he is working on filling the vacant seat from Education for the Faculty Affairs Committee and reported that the Educational Policy Committee has been filled.

D. Berger made a request from a colleague that a moment of silence be held for Rosa Parks, which was observed.


No report.


No report.


The Treasurer reported that there is $1,213.07 in the checking account, with a deposit ready for $90.00, along with $10.00 in dues that someone just submitted, bringing the available amount to $1,313.07. DeGouff announced that she is waiting for confirmation from Beth Langhans on what amount is needed to fund the Faculty Senate Scholarship.


President Bitterbaum reported that he had just returned from Yalta and shared with the Senate some history regarding the visit. The Chancellor and President of SUNY Albany along with Bitterbaum and 35 other faculty from SUNYs, went to visit with Ukrainian counterparts, with an interest in Special Education, since in the Ukraine children with special needs do not attend school. He elaborated an initiative between the former Minister of Education and Science, who is interested in partnering with a school such as ours. Bitterbaum stated that in the spring both a deputy minister and former minister will be visiting our campus to see what we have to offer in certain areas of expertise, including Speech Pathology, Adapted PE, Special Education, Educational Psychology and Therapeutic Recreation. Faculty from our campus, Henry Steck, Craig Little and Richard Kendrick, also visited and brought along their different areas of expertise.

The President announced that in two weeks it will be International Week on campus with the Acting Chancellor visiting here to give a talk on November 17 at 3:30 in the Corey Union Exhibition Lounge. He encouraged everyone to attend and hear the Acting Chancellor talk about his vision on how SUNY System can make a difference both world wide and in the state of New York.

Bitterbaum reported next on the wonderful new partnership called Dartfish, an exciting and innovative new digital form of technology. He encouraged those interested to contact Jeff Bauer and Dan DePerno from ESSS. He reported that the technology can be used in many areas, such as Art and Foreign Language, saying "the capabilities are tremendous."

The last item of business was regarding the energy crisis. The President indicated that on our campus alone the budget item of 2.1 million is one we were not anticipating, a combination of a mistake NYMO made for many years, in addition to the added cost for gas, oil and electricity. There have been suggestions as to ways of conserving energy, with one example being during winter session, instead of using different buildings, to consolidate classes in one building. Bitterbaum reported that there would be a workshop the following day with suggestions from faculty, staff and students. The Provost will take those ideas to the Chairs and Vice Presidents to take to their areas. Another idea, Bitterbaum stated, would be to finish the fall session earlier. He said that superintendents of schools would be visiting on campus the following week to exchange ideas. One suggestion is to take away the October break, eliminating the two reading days, and using them as actual class days. This would allow the campus to shut down a week earlier in December. Bitterbaum reported this could save us $100,000 and he encouraged people to share their ideas and suggestions.

E. Caffarella mentioned, regarding closing early, that student teachers would be teaching in schools and would not be using our facility, indicating this might be a possibility. He said that although supervisors would still need to supervise, they would not be on campus and that this would not be a problem.

K. Alwes asked for clarification that when Bitterbaum mentioned ending a week earlier, did he mean classes or final exams?

The President replied that everything would end at that time.

W. Shaut responded that eliminating four days during break and one weekend study day would allow everyone to leave five days earlier at the end of the semester.

L. Anderson commented that for Canadian college students their semester ends on Thanksgiving.

Bitterbaum stated that the administration thought about ending even earlier but realized this would not be possible.

R. Olsson said that another consideration is that, although the President was referring to cost savings in December, in the colder months of January and February, the week between the end of the spring semester and start of summer school could be eliminated.

Bitterbaum reported that since school districts start after New Years and we dont start until late January, this would pose no problems and we wouldnt need to check with school departments.

M. King indicated that in Florida the colleges start a week earlier in the summer.

T. Phillips asked, if this initiative was instituted, would it mean the college would realize a savings of $20,000 a day just by turning the heat down in buildings?

Shaut responded that this would mean a $100,000 cost reduction in mid-December.

Bitterbaum said that, since this is a big campus, people need to realize the amount of square footage in the dorms and buildings. He also stated that the administration will be taking this matter to the students for their input.

M. K. Boland said she thought the students would be outraged and asked if there wasnt another option, like starting a week earlier in August, or leaving a week earlier at the end of the spring semester?

Rayle encouraged the students to present suggestions of their own.

Shaut said that the effort is to close the 2 million dollar gap, with this being and only a small part of it. He said, "The state has not said it is going to raise tuition to cover rising energy costs and that campuses must deal with it."

D. West asked if, at some later time, the college might possibly consider canceling the Winter Session between semesters?

Bitterbaum stated that the administration looked at that option and it could be done but since it is a big moneymaker they are reluctant to do so. He did indicated that it is a possibility in the future, however. Bitterbaum also mentioned that the positive aspect of ending the semester earlier in December is that it would get the students home and in the job market sooner before Christmas break.

M. K. Boland pointed out that this year the college is getting out much later than in the past.

Rayle ended the discussion, due to time constraints, but asked the faculty and students to take the issue to their constituents.


Dr. Franco reported that he and the Provost were charged by the President last summer to put together groups to look at DSI. There is a group meeting next week with two meetings being held to talk about the whole idea, the concept of discretionary salary increases and how campuses might distribute those funds. He said the groups will be meeting on a regular basis, coming up with some proposals, and involving the Senate in discussions.

He also reported about an incident last spring referred to as the American Legion incident, and as a result his office has put together a group of students, faculty, staff and law enforcement agency representatives to talk about ways to improve relations with our students and local law enforcement.

Franco also reported that the ASC Board of Directors has been constituted: J. Barry,

W. Shaut, M. K. Boland, N. Tirado, S. Brown, J. Lenhart, H. Steck (faculty rep) and M. Nowak (faculty/staff rep) along with Dr. Franco. The first meeting, he reported, was held the day before the Senate meeting where they talked about issues associated with ASC. Dana Wavle and his staff have been very receptive and open to looking at ways to improve what ASC does on campus.

J. Mosser announced that the previous day was Judges Day at SUNY Cortland, with

Ted McKee, alum and last years commencement speaker, who offered some interesting insights.

This past weekend was Hall of Fame Weekend and six alumni were elected. Mosser reported that here was a wonderful turnout and the weather was great.

Another event that occurred this past week was the played host to a joint Chamber of Commerce meeting including both Tompkins and Cortland county chambers at the Alumni House to expose the regional business leaders to the new facility.

Vice President Mosser ended his report by stating that the College Foundation Board will meet the upcoming Friday. They are having a conversation about the colleges future resource needs. They will be developing a campaign in the months ahead and, hopefully, Mosser will have more news to share. This Saturday is the Emeritus Luncheon here in Corey Union at noon.


There were no questions for the Vice Presidents.


Long Range Planning Committee - D. Ritchie announced that the LRPC has met and his committee has been working with the President to finalize the list of the long range plan goals and the time line process to approve and publish them.

Educational Policy Committee - No report.

Student Affairs Committee - No report.

Faculty Affairs Committee - G. Clarke reported that his committee would be meeting the following day.

College Research Committee - No report.

General Education Committee - D. Barclay passed around the General Education Assessment Plan document 2005-06 - 2007-08, which is the SUNY Assessment Plan. The deadline has been extended as to strengthening campus based assessment. This report, Barclay announced, is going to a November 3 deadline, and will be debated at the next Senate meeting. He gave a brief background as to the history of the document. He said it was produced by the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment along with the GE Committee. They have been meeting almost every week for the past 1-1/2 months to get the report together, which describes the 3-year assessment for the SUNY categories, the SUNY 1-10 plus two competencies. Barclay indicated there is a history of assessment and timetable for the next three years. His committee then outlined how they would be choosing the courses, how we will complement it during any given semester, the actual instruments rubric we are using for assessment, and any programmatic changes evaluated in the process itself. Barclay stated that the implementation consists of methods we have done in the past, along with changes from the last 3 year cycle that we finished. His committee has fine tuned things with some areas of implementation and has raised problems which they have addressed along with the new implementation. In terms of the actual instruments themselves, Barclay said, particularly for the second or third use of the cycle, some of these areas are still in development. He finished by saying it includes part campus based assessment areas and anything scheduled for the 2nd and 3rd year assessment.


T. Phillips reported on the Fall Plenary meeting at Saratoga Springs that he attended along with Chairman Rayle. He reported the web site address: http://www.suny.edu/facultysenate where there is a wealth of information such as minutes and approved resolutions that will be on the website, as well as best practices, electronic documents, an administrators guide, a governance handbook, the Guide for Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Programs, a Guide to Faculty Orientation Programs and a whole list of other documents, as well.

Phillips went on to report that the new President of the UFS is Karl Weizalis, from SUNY Upstate. Phillips felt that he would be good being very professional and bright and he reported that he is looking forward to his leadership. The SUNY Senator then reported on the current issues: 1) a fairly major problem at Alfred University, Alfred State and Alfred College of Ceramics invoking the seldom used provision where a visiting group from the UFS is going to visit Alfred and try to assist in resolving the problems that exist on campus. UFS, he reported, is actively involved in this. The group also heard from Acting Chancellor Ryan and Phillips was very impressed, calling Ryan "a no nonsense guy and a gentleman." King showed Ryan the file full of communications between Alfred and the System Administration and the first thing Chancellor Ryan did was get on the phone and say he is not going to send letters regarding this issue, but just gong to resolve it.

Another issue that came up was the academic bill of rights which is still in the background but it may come up. Phillips stated that governance bodies at other SUNY universities have all passed resolutions against the Academic Bill of Rights, as did the Student Assembly.

There is also going to be an Academic Integrity Conference in Albany on March 23 and 24 and the information will be available on the web site if anybody is looking for details on how to register.

Phillips ended up by reporting on the Sharing of Concerns, where all comprehensive colleges report, with Ken OBrien as the convener of his group. Phillips reported one of the problems is regarding lack of consultation of faculty over the appointment of the Interim President at Pottsdam.

President Bitterbaum interjected that the Interim President at Pottsdam has resigned and is going to Arizona to be in charge of the community foundation.

Another issue is the percent of part-time faculty on campus, which varies from campus to campus, Phillips reported.

Administrative turnover was also an issue that was discussed and characterized by one of the Senators as a lot of administrators acting as thespians which Phillips explained there was an attempt at humor.

The discretionary salary issue was raised by others including Phillips, with newer faculty coming in with greater salaries than older faculty.

BAP II was discussed, the budget allocation process, currently in its second iteration. Chancellor Ryan spoke about it and said he thought that was going to be a pretty solid method of allocating resources. Dan Sheppard came in from system finance to talk and said no campus would be harmed or would suffer because of BAP II. Sheppard also mentioned performance based measures which may be used in BAP II. Performance based funding would be out of extra monies and would not be penalizing other campuses. Library funding was raised as a big issue. The Operations Committee had a resolution about library funding. Phillips stated that everyone shared the concern that libraries have suffered, which is something Chancellor Ryan addressed. He said it was probably something he could not solve but he would be pushing for increased funding. Phillips reported that Ryan would be submitting a very aggressive budget and admitted SUNY should get a lot more money than it does.

There are concerns about the push to increase faculty workload and an increase in publications that faculty are required to submit, which Phillips reported a lot of campuses, including our own, are having discussions about. Phillips mentioned the expectations of more administrative duties and mandates, like assessment, requiring more work and no money to go along with it. Someone also mentioned summer and intercession with some campuses having two week courses, compromising the quality of education. Another issue is rising energy costs. Phillips mentioned that all sector and community college statutory reports are online.

Provost Salins also spoke and discussed Mission Review II and how that is progressing. He visited almost all campuses around the state, which Phillips considered very labor intensive. The Memo of Understanding should be drafted by early 2006. He also mentioned an initiative to look at revamping the learning environment.Phillips reported on the SUNY Learning Network, and the next iteration of the SUNY Learning Network, where they are going to bring in new technology. There will be a central location where technology and efforts would emanate from. Another initiative by SUNY concerns education of teachers with our system as being the number one trainer of educators. It is felt that we should be more involved in pre-k to 12 with SUNY concentrating in being more involved in what we do such, as curriculum. Salins also talked about campus based assessment and said that his office has extended the deadline from November 30 to February 15 for campuses to get their materials in. The latest rubrics on strengthened based assessment is on the GEAR website, he reported.

K. Alwes asked if there was a SUNY policy addressing the compression of a 3 week course to a 2 week one that refers to how long the winter session has to be during the regular year?

Phillips responded that someone mentioned that their campus had two week sessions, but the discussion was about the quality of the course.

Governali replied that it has to do with the total number of hours, regardless of how many weeks, and that we have a short session on our campus in the summer as well.

Alwes agreed with Governali that this would constitute contact hours.

Bitterbaum stated that, as an Academic Vice President, there is a formula which breaks it down into minutes.


Committee on Committees - The Committee on Committees recommended the following appointments for the EPC Committee: Susan Stratton and Judy Bentley for Educations; Lisi Krall for the Faculty Affairs Committee, Social and Behavioral Sciences. Regarding the search committee for the Director of International Programs, since the first search did not fill the position, the search is going constituted. Parliamentarian Kreh explained that the Faculty Senate can exercise its right to appoint two people to the search committee with special consideration. Joanne Barry is in the process of filling any vacancies and the search committee has moved the appointments of Liz McCartney and Lara Atkins for the Faculty Senate to confirm. The appointments were approved.


The consultative search committee proposal was introduced with an opening statement from Joanne Barry. Barry explained that there has been discussion for some time on this campus about improving the search committee process. She was asked at the Presidents Cabinet earlier this year to research what other campuses do and to offer alternative proposals. Barry reported that many of our sister institutions have appointed search committees which are also much smaller than ours. She then visited with the Joint Chairs Council and various campus Vice Presidents and, based on feedback that she received, she came up with two models, an elected or appointed one.

K. Alwes asked if this was going to be voted on by the whole campus or just the Senate?

Barry responded that the Faculty Senate would be representing the campus, since the campus, as a body, vote on by-laws to faculty governance.

D. Ritchie raised an objection from his constituency, the library, regarding changes in representation for search committees, that the proposal would eliminate the specific librarian representative for every one of the administrative search committees. He said several years ago the Faculty Senate made a decision that affirmed the right for library faculty to have a specific representative on search committees for deans, President, Provost, and Vice President. Ritchie further emphasized that the only way the library standpoint can be heard is to insist on specific representation for librarians. He did agree that although search committees could be reduced in size, he thinks eliminating the librarys representation is not in the colleges best interest, and in urging the librarys importance to search committees, he was bringing that point forward.

W. Shaut said he understood Ritchies point but even if librarians were included, it would not guarantee representation for them.

Ritchie stated that there are 12 librarians, offering enough opportunities for a librarian to serve.

Shaut said if you look closely at the proposal, there is no guarantee for representation from his constituency, Finance and Management. He said a search could be constituted for a Vice President of Institutional Advancement with no representation from Finance and Management.

Ritchie stressed that he is referring to faculty representation, not the total search committee, but specifically faculty.

J. Barry pointed out that librarians are not precluded from the search since, the way the proposal is written, they can still serve at large.

Ritchie stated that previously their own area was represented.

Chairman Rayle said that the attempt was not to debate the proposal, but to address the overall issues and concerns.

Alwes asked, regarding working on search committees over the summer, if the expectations over the summer would be the same.

Rayle emphasized that this is something that needs to be considered.

Barry said, whether elected or appointed, once you are chosen to serve on a committee your obligations are the same regardless of the time factor.

Bitterbaum said that the administration prefers to have searches take place in the fall or spring because serving is onerous in the summer, and that is one of the reasons they asked Barry to look at what other campuses do, to rectify those problems.

D. Berger asked who does the appointing in the case of an appointed model?

Barry responded that she puts out a call for nominations, whether elected or appointed,. She elaborated that when it is appointed the appropriate Vice President does it from that area, such as Bill Shaut. She said search committees would be formed by taking nominations and making appointments from those nominations for the composition that needs to be established.

Berger asked, since it requires faculty consultation, with the Faculty Senate being appointed to represent the faculty, would it not be feasible for the Faculty Senate Chair to elect representatives, to eliminate the lengthy election process?

Several individuals asked for clarification, including Dr. Franco, and Berger repeated it.

Rayle said Bergers suggestion could be taken into consideration at the next Steering Committee meeting and brought back to the Senate floor.


The next item of business was the charge to the Faculty Affairs Committee from the Senate Steering Committee regarding the peer review process and criteria for scholarly activity.

D. Berger inquired if he could speak to the charge and the chair urged him to do so. Berger said that he was in favor of it, because he believed that academic peers should set standards for judging their colleagues on scholarly activity. He gave examples of an article that might qualify in one department, versus a book in another, as well as congressional testimony and unfunded or funded grants, as examples. He said that "I think each department has a better handle on what is valued by their discipline."

Rayle said that is the goal of the charge.

Berger remarked "one size does not fit all" and the chair concurred.

Alwes asked a question that if the Senate approved the charge and each academic department does what is expected, "are those the criteria and nothing else?" She also asked, regarding the policies and procedures, "Will there be peer review?"

Bitterbaum responded that, as someone already said, "It is not that simple."

An unknown individual stated "We are trying to affirm here the principal of peer judgment in the review process."

T. Phillips asked if the President might care to elaborate his thoughts on the subject.

The President said that this came about a few years ago when this issue was approached and faculty were not enthusiastic at the time. He explained that it came up that if the campus moved to a peer review model, our expectations would be one every two years, so that by the time of your six year review the policy would be the same across the whole college, allowing for variations. Bitterbaum stated that the Provost was surprised when this issue came up as a result of some faculty visiting one another and realized some departments had different expectations than other departments. The President said, "Elizabeth would like to say, as a Provost working with deans and department chairs, that we need further clarification about this issue."

Rayle emphasized that this is about clarification about what is happening in your own department so that faculty can be involved in the process.

Berger broke the debate down into two issues, one about peers considering scholarly activity, the other whether the emphasis should be on increasing the expectations, and clarification on what is valued in your field.

Bitterbaum clarified that Bergers point was never debated. He mentioned his college roommate, a Biologist who had published 18 papers, which to someone sitting on a committee would seem outstanding. However, the President indicated his roommate being explained that all one had to do was change an enzyme to produce different publications. Bitterbaum ended by saying, "So I mean theres a lot going on here. Elizabeth just wants to have that dialogue of clarification which is a very positive step on her part."

Rayle stressed that the Faculty Affairs Committee will be making a report, not dictating policy.

President Bitterbaum explained that in reading the Middle States Report, which explains part of the complexity of this problem, he was surprised that colleges had different expectations along with variety. He also mentioned the reduction from 4/4 to 3/3 which is the history as to why some of the departments were required to raise their expectations regarding scholarly activity.

Clarke referred to the word "clarity" in the charge.

Rayle stressed that the goal is that criteria are written in a way that is understood clearly and by everybody.

Clarke asked if the Faculty Senate was expecting his committee to make relative the clarity of criteria between departments.

Berger suggested leaving the words clarity out.

Alwes said criteria is implied as being clarity, and the word clarity is not needed.

An unknown individual asked if it would help to point out, in the discussion, the motivation for this is so an outside reviewer could see the criteria?

Berger pointed out that the area of scholarly review is not qualified in the handbook.

Rayle stressed this would be written down at the department level.

Berger said this would also be what is expected for new people coming inn, what kinds of articles, books, etc. are expected of them in the review process.

Parliamentarian Kreh offered his assistance. He said that although policies are written by the Board of Trustees, scholarly activity is not one of those things. Kreh further stated that In a department you have to translate it. He explained that this is an attempt in each department to specify what qualifies under scholarly activity in order to meet the criteria. He said, "It seems to me a reasonable thing to do to specify in as much detail what it means in your department to qualify for scholarly activity."

Governali said he wasnt sure what was being called for, and asked for clarification if it is whether one is reporting by department what the criteria are?

Rayle said "Yes."

Governali said, "So in April they will have a report outlining what each department expects?"

Berger emphasized that Mel Kings point is that there would be another procedure indicated, which is outside peer reviewers. He said, "Outside peer reviewers and newer faculty need to know what to expect without living here. We can point to what is written."

It was decided to edit the language.

Clarke mentioned policy decisions for criteria evaluation and explained that his trouble is that he doesnt think his committee is capable of judging clarity or criteria.

Rayle stated the entire discussion is about how clear we are in the criteria, which should be able to be understood by a reasonable person.

Clarke asked how his committee could be expected to accomplish that? He explained that the President just admitted that, since he is not a Biologist, his area of expertise is outside of judging that qualification. Clarke asked how a Biologist would look at criteria from the Physics Department, which a Physicist might understand, but his committee might not. He asked, "Does it have to be in laymans terms thats useless for specialty? What does clarity mean in that case?"

Kreh responded that the department is specifying what is expects. He mentioned for scholarly activity, for example, that you might write article. However, he went on to explain that might not be clear. He said, "But if you say peer review journal, that is precise."

Berger said if one were on a committee they might read referred articles, journals or chapters that were edited. He also used the example that the Art Department might expect participation in juried art shows, another department might allow invited juried presentation. Berger ended by saying, "We know what theyre talking about."

Alwes said the word criteria means that it is clear.

Berger said that the Senate is not asking the committee to decide criteria. He said, "We are asking to review to make sure an outsider can understand in a particular department that it is made clear what their criteria are."

Alwes reaffirmed that the criteria are the clarity.

Barclay offered amended language, "Review each academic departments submitted personnel policies and procedures for clearly articulated criteria for evaluation of scholarly activity."

There was minor discussion, a vote on the amended language, and the charge passed.

M. K. Boland asked if Sarah from NYPIRG could make a short statement.

The NYPIRG rep made a brief statement and handed out a flyer on the student empowerment series that NYPIRG is putting on.


There were no area senators reports.


M. K. Boland reported that the Executive Board attended a conference in Binghamton last weekend where they met with other SUNY schools and passed a resolution against the academic integrity policy . She also circulated two other resolutions passed at the Senate the previous night looking for faculty support. Boland reported that one was regarding Hallnet and how the services have been discontinued and the other one concerned Corey Union with classes being held there this semester interfering with SGA club activities.

Rayle told her he had spoken with the parliamentarian and due to pressing business the students could have five minutes to discuss it. He asked if she knew why they were holding classes in Corey Union?

Boland responded that the students are asking for a stay because they were never informed that classes would be held in Corey Union and they are also responsible for moving the desks around.

D. Sidebottom responded that we have a committee of faculty and staff who reviewed the matter, although he didnt recall if any students served on that committee. He stated that when they knew Sperry was being refurbished, Mark Yacavone, Chair of that committee, brought interested individuals working with the Registrar trying to find places for available spaces in the next 18 months to two years. They ran out of spaces and had no alternative to come into Corey. Now there is a possibility that we have more faculty teach at 8 am, however, there has not been the success they anticipated. This semester only 20 classes being offered at 8 am. He is asking the Provost to visit with Deans, department Chairs and faculty about the possibility of moving more classes into the early morning hours. The Registrar has the computer spreadsheet which outlines everything.

M. King indicated that 8 am classes not being filled is not a problem driven by the faculty.

Bitterbaum mentioned the necessity of taking required classes at 8 am, especially if that is the only time they are scheduled.

D. Ritchie moved to charge the Facilities Masterplan Oversight Committee to review the matter and report back to the Senate.

D. Sidebottom pointed out that it was a separate Committee and not the Facilities and Master plan and Oversight Committee that looked at reassignment of classrooms and came up with the report, however, no one knew the specific name for the ad hoc committee.

Boland asked if any students were on that committee and Sidebottom responded "no."

Rayle took a vote on referring it to that committee and it passed.

D. Berger asked Boland if she could explain what Hallnet is and the problems relating to it?

Boland said she was not sure of how the problems started but Hallnet initially helped students service computers by installing software to get rid of viruses. She indicated that last year there was a ten dollar increase in the technology fee, and now students are having a hard time with this because the computing people are now telling students to go off campus to fix their computers, refusing to assist them. Boland indicated that the students want a 20 dollar reduction in the technology fee since their has been a reduction in service.

Bitterbaum stated that he didnt think there was a correlation between the ten dollar technology fee increase and Hallnet but asked D. Sidebottom to explain why Hallnet was no longer available to the students.

Sidebottom explained that computing did not eliminate Hallnet, but enhanced it, making it more proactive for the students to be able to gain access. He said that before last fall they would see about 300 student machines for various reasons, not offering any hardware support for many hardware vendors like Dell and Hewlett Packard due to warranty violations. He said his people ended up just cleaning machines last fall and getting viruses off of them and indicated they were seeing over 900 student owned machines last year with only three network technicians dealing with servicing them. Sidebottom indicated his office instituted a process that when the students registered their computers it would scan the machine and determine if there were any problems. He further stated the machines were sent over to the remediation area so that they could clean up the machines themselves and that this worked very well. He stated that they still provided support. He indicated that over the opening weekend in August and during the first couple weeks of class his office dealt with 500 calls with an average time of getting the problems resolved in about 20 minutes, which shows how much they improved the process.

Rayle suggested that, in the interest of time, someone move to postpone discussion on this matter until next time.

The President offered, in the meantime, to visit with Paula Warnken on her return, along with the Provost and students, to see if there is some middle ground they can agree on. He concurred that servicing over 900 machines is a lot.

Boland asked a question regarding this new service that was supposed to enhance things why Hallnet cant service the few computers that are left over. She also explained that P. Warnken had attended the Student Senate to discuss raising the technology fee and Hallnet was included on there.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 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) State University of New York College at Cortland General Education Assessment Plan 2005/6 - 2007/8 submitted by D. Barclay, Chair, GE Committee.

(2) Steering Committee Recommendation to the Faculty Senate regarding charge to the Faculty Affairs Committee submitted by D. Ritchie.

(3) Corey Union Resolution from the Student Government Association submitted by M. K. Boland.

(4) Hallnet Resolution from the Student Government Association submitted by M. K. Boland.