Bookmark and Share

September 21, 2010

                                                          FACULTY SENATE MINUTES #2

                                                    September 21, 2010

The second meeting of the Faculty Senate 2010-2011 was called to order by Chair David Miller on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 1:15 PM in Jacobus Lounge, Brockway Hall.

SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Miller, T. Phillips, T. Vigars, D. Driscoll, D. Berger, R. Kendrick, K. Lawrence, R. Grantham, S. Wilson, B. Buxton, J. Kim, M. Chandler, D. Harrington, K. Pristash, J. Walkuski, J. Campanaro, A. M. Rossi, W. Michael, E. Bitterbaum, G. Sharer, R. Spitzer, A. Fitz-Gibbon, G. Clarke, S. Anderson

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT:  W. Miller, J. Alemzadeh, S. Rayl, O. White, R. Borden, K. Hempson, L. Klotz, E. McCabe, T. Slack, P. Schroeder, M. Prus, R. Franco, W. Shaut, M. Connell

GUESTS PRESENT: M. Holland, S. Dangler, P. Koryzno

I  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:  There was a motion for approval of the minutes from September 7, 2010 (Approved)


The nominations for the vacancies on Committee on Committees were approved. (Approved)


Chair Miller reported on Senate business currently in progress, including the searches being undertaken on

campus, the Committee on Teaching Effectiveness status, involving a meeting with Provost Prus, and inviting

A. Berg from Information Resources to the next meeting to discuss electronic communication issues on


L. Anderson gave a brief announcement regarding Middle States and related events on campus.

IV. VICE CHAIR:  T. Phillips – No report.


VI. SECRETARY’S REPORT: - T. Vigars –  The secretary gave a brief update on electronic voting on campus.

VII.  PRESIDENT’S REPORT:   The President gave a brief report.

VIII.  SPECIAL GUEST:  S. Dangler gave a presentation on campus security issues. 


Student Affairs Committee  - M. Connell, Chair –  No report.

Academic Faculty Affairs Committee  – A. Fitz-Gibbon, Chair –  The chair reported that the committee is working on departmental policies.

Long-Range Planning Committee – No report (absent)

Educational Policy Committee –  R. Spitzer, Chair – No report.

Professional Affairs Committee  – G. Clarke, Chair – No report.


Committee on Committees -  T. Vigars read the report on behalf of the committee. There was a vote to approve the nominations for committee vacancies.  

College Research Committee  – P. Ducey, Chair – No report (absent)

General Education Committee – No report (absent)

X. AREA SENATOR’S REPORTS:  There were no Area Senator’s reports.

XI. SUNY SENATOR’S REPORT – No report – T. Phillips, SUNY Senator Alternate, announced that he will be attending the meeting at Alfred at the end of October and encouraged anyone with concerns to contact him. 

XII. STUDENT SENATOR’S REPORTS:  The students gave a brief report.

XIII. OLD BUSINESS:  There was no Old Business. 

XIV. NEW BUSINESS: There was no New Business.

The following reports are appended to the minutes in the order they are submitted:

(1)    NY State University Police Department, Cortland, General Orders, Electronic               

            Surveillance Policy; Key Advisory Board Access Control Policy Changes and Structure


(2)   Committee on Committee’s Report submitted by J . Barry, Committee on


Respectfully Submitted:

Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary


NY State University Police Department - Cortland



© new:

£ rescinds:

£ amends:



accreditation standards:

effective date:

January 24, 2008

issue/amend date:

January 24, 2008



The purpose of this order is to provide guidance and establish parameters restricting the use of electronic surveillance and recording of public and restricted areas for the purpose of safety and security.


The College at Cortland reserves the right to place cameras on campus where necessary and appropriate.  This policy applies to all personnel, departments, offices, and other subdivisions of the College in the use of electronic recording and surveillance.

University Police has the primary responsibility for crime prevention, law enforcement, and other public safety and security matters on the campus and other college owned property.  Therefore, University Police will control the cameras and recordings and have the primary responsibility for enforcing the policy.  University Police is committed to enhancing its public safety efforts through the use of electronic surveillance under appropriate circumstances.

The College at Cortland respects the privacy of university community members and takes pains to balance the privacy against safety needs on campus.  Cameras extend the protection of University Police, even when officers are not in an immediate area.  Cameras are not a guarantee of safety, but are a tool that assists University Police.  Cameras protect campus community members by serving as deterrents and by alerting police to dangers.  Cameras are never used to monitor or track campus community members.

This policy does not apply to legitimate academic use of cameras for educational purposes, to cameras used for journalism, or to private cameras owned and operated by members of the campus community.


The following guidelines apply to the placement of surveillance cameras on


A.     University Police may establish temporary or permanent surveillance cameras in public areas of the campus.  These cameras may not make audio recordings;

B.     This policy does not apply to covert cameras used by University Police for criminal surveillance as governed by New York State Law;

C.     Cameras may not be established in private areas of the campus without obtaining a warrant and only subject to Section B above.  Electronic recording of public areas for security purposes at the College is limited to uses that do not violate the reasonable expectation of privacy as defined by law.  Private areas include residence hall rooms, bathrooms, shower areas, locker and changing rooms, areas where a reasonable person might change clothes, and private offices.  Additionally rooms for medical, physical, or mental therapy or treatment are private.  Private areas also include the entrances, exits, lobbies, exam rooms or hallways of the Counseling Center and the Student Health Services.  The only exceptions are    cameras used narrowly to secure money, documents, supplies or pharmaceuticals from theft, destruction, or tampering.

D.     Surveillance cameras shall not be directed or zoomed into the windows of any private residential space or office.  To the maximum extent possible, electronic shielding will be placed in the camera so that the camera does not have the capability to look into or through windows.

E.     Surveillance cameras shall not be directed or zoomed into the windows of any private building not on College property.

F.     Empty dummy or placebo cameras will not be used.


This policy shall also be available to all students, faculty, staff, and visitors upon request and shall be noted in the annual safety report required by the Clery Act and other appropriate publications.  Additional notices may accompany cameras or posted at campus entrances.


The following guidelines apply to camera use and nonuse:

A.     Surveillance cameras shall be used exclusively for campus safety

purposes.  The campus committee that governs human study does not have jurisdiction over recordings by surveillance cameras and may not authorize any individual researcher or organization, whether faculty, staff, student or the general public, to use these cameras, or recordings from the cameras, for research purposes.

B.     Cameras will not be used to monitor individual students, faculty, or staff, except as necessary for a criminal investigation and except as in accordance with the terms of a warrant.  Cameras may be used to monitor a student or employee work area, such as an area with financial transactions, even if there is only one student, faculty, or staff member employed in that work area.  Cameras used to monitor a work area are not intended to view the contents of computer screens.  If the cameras can pan to view computer screens, that area will be electronically blurred so that these cameras are not used to monitor employee computer use.

C.     The College will not use surveillance cameras to prosecute parking violations. 


A.     Temporary surveillance cameras are defined as cameras that are established by the University Police to provide additional security for a campus event or situation, and that are not in place for more than 30 days.  Permanent surveillance cameras are established as part of the campus infrastructure and require planning and approval by the appropriate authorities.

B.     The Chief of University Police in consultation with the Vice President for Student Affairs shall determine placement and use of surveillance cameras.  Other departments, committees or individuals may recommend placement of cameras.

C.     Legitimate safety and security purposes include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.     Protection of Buildings and Property: Building perimeter, entrances

and exits, lobbies and corridors, receiving docks, special storage areas, laboratories, cashier locations, etc;

2.     Monitoring of Access Control Systems: Monitor and record restricted access transactions at entrances to buildings and other areas;

3.     Verification of Security Alarms: Intrusion alarms, exit door controls, hold-up alarms, etc.

4.     Electronic Patrol of Public Areas: Bus stops, parking lots, public streets, vehicle intersections, etc

5.     Criminal Investigation: Robbery, burglary, theft surveillance, etc;

6.     Protection of Pedestrians: Monitoring of pedestrian and vehicle and traffic activity;

7.     Sporting Events: Monitoring of fan behavior at sporting events;

8.     Other Areas: Other areas may be considered upon the approval of the Chief of Police and the Vice President for Student Affairs.


A.     Images and recordings may only be monitored/viewed by University Police Officers, staff with responsibility for residence hall security, persons responsible for adjudication of campus code violations, and other officials authorized by the President of the College.  No students may be hired to monitor recordings or images. Staff responsible for installation and maintenance of surveillance equipment may access recordings only to the extent necessary to carry out their duties.

B.     If the University Police feels it is necessary to aid in an investigation or search, short recordings or image stills may be released to the media or the public.  Prior to releasing the recordings or images, the face and identifying features of all those persons not of interest to the investigation should be blurred. 

C.     Those Officers and authorized staff approved for monitoring should receive training in effective, legal and ethical use of monitoring equipment.  These Officers and authorized staff will receive a copy of this policy and provide written acknowledgement that they have read and understand this policy.  Officers and authorized staff will receive any and all updates or amendments to this policy.


A.     Recordings will be stored in a manner consistent with available technology and transported in a manner that preserves security.  Current and archived recordings shall be kept locked and secured.

B.     Recordings not related to or used for an investigation will be kept strictly confidential and destroyed within 60 days.  Recordings or images used for investigation or prosecution of a crime shall be retained until the end of the court or judicial proceedings and appeal period unless directed otherwise by a court.

C.     No attempt shall ever be made to alter any recording.  Editing or otherwise altering recordings or still images, except to enhance quality for investigative purposes is strictly prohibited.  Enhancements will only be made to a copy of the saved recording. 

D.     Transmission of recordings using the internet or campus network will use encryption technology to ensure that recordings are not improperly accessed.  University Police will work with Computer Services staff to establish security for the system and to unsure proper password and encryption technology for recordings or images transferred or transmitted over the internet or on the campus network.


Any person who tampers with or destroys a surveillance camera or any part of the electronic surveillance system may be prosecuted in the criminal justice system as well as the campus judicial system.  

By Order Of

Steven P. Dangler

Chief of Police 

 Key Advisory Board

Access Control Policy Changes & Structure Recommendations

The Key Advisory Committee was formed in the Fall 2008, charged with the review of current policy and procedures.  The main focus of the group was to provide tighter control of both mechanical and electronic access systems in use at SUNY Cortland.  The goal is two-fold; to help protect the significant investment the institution has in both access control systems and property, and to provide better accountability towards the security and safety of students, faculty and staff of SUNY Cortland.

Two technologies were examined as a part of this process: mechanical and electronic.  Mechanical access control typically refers to metal keys that allow access to an area via a mechanical lock.  Electronic access control refers to utilizing electronic-based credentials that allow access to area via an electrically-actuated locking device (commonly referred to as “card access”). 

Currently, SUNY Cortland has five different areas/types of access control.  Four of them are mechanical, and encompass the Dormitory Grand Master (DGM) system, the Academic Grand Master (AGM) system, the Restricted Grand Master (RGM) system, and miscellaneous locks that do not belong to any mastering system.  Additionally, card access has been implemented in many locations across campus and is able to provide almost endless access combination possibilities.

The group identified these deficiencies:

  • Current access policy does not provide specifications for acceptable key assignments.
  • “Grand Master” keys (keys that open a large subset of locks) are often requested to fulfill end-user access needs, exposing the college to a large liability, both financially and security-wise.
  • “Grand Master” requests were often granted in the past, leading to a relatively large amount of Grand Master keys in circulation.
  • Due to the large amount of Grand Masters in circulation, some areas on campus have been keyed off-master, negating any benefits derived from a master-based system.
  • Mechanical and electronic access are handled both separately and differently, while essentially achieving an identical goal.
  • No real penalty/mechanism is in place ensuring the return of keys upon termination of employment.

The group has created a draft revision of the existing SUNY Cortland Access Policy in an attempt to address these issues. Some highlights include:

  • Creation of employment role definitions that provide guidelines as to what types of keys may be issued under standard circumstances.
  • Definition of the “Restricted Grand Master” system, with the requirement that all locks on campus belong to one of the Grand Mastering systems.
  • Creation of an end-of-employment procedure to ensure keys/access devices are returned before final paycheck is issued.
  • Elimination of Grand Master issuance outside of University Police Officers.
  • Creation of an appeal process for instances where key issuance is denied per policy allowing the end-user to make a case for exceptional circumstances.

Examination of these issues has highlighted some areas of concern that need to be addressed.  First and foremost is adhesion to policy.  The committee’s consensus is the current culture is geared more towards convenience than security.  High-level metal keys have been requested and issued in the past in order to provide simplified access.  The changes outlined in these documents aim to severely restrict those who are able to be issued high-level keys.  The main issue does not lie in the trust placed in the requestor (although this is a legitimate concern), rather it revolves around reducing the exposure of these valuable keys to the potential of loss and theft.

The committee feels that a balance between convenience and security can be reached by leveraging technology.  Members of the committee have met with stakeholders across campus to discuss their access need, and to identify what currently works as well as areas that are deficient.  The committee therefore has made these recommendations:

  • Expand card access to all buildings, providing electronic access to exterior doors (minimum of one door, ideally two or more per building).  The access doors would be strategically located to provide convenient access for both building occupants as well as maintenance personnel.
  • Provide mechanical sequence locks in all buildings.  These devices will allow all authorized key-holders access to building master key-rings (see appendix A).
  • De-couple proximity device from ID card for faculty and staff (see appendix B).
  • Relocate campus lock shop from the supervision of the Physical Plant to that of University Police, unified under the office of Access Control.
  • Charge the Access Advisory Committee with the ongoing responsibility to hear and vote on access denial appeals, and to review and recommend policy updates as needed.
  • Approve the revised SUNY Cortland Key Policy.
  • Migration of all buildings to new mastering system as feasible (renovation, key loss, etc.).  This will allow SUNY Cortland to unify to one Grand Master and provide the opportunity to create accurate key distribution records.

Appendix A

Sequence Lock Description/Function

A sequence lock is a mechanical device used to secure keys, and in some cases, other devices.  The lock consists of two cores that are connected via an interlock.  This interlock prevents both keys from being removed at any single time.

An illustration of sequence lock functionality (as provided by Key Systems Inc.).

The release key (labeled as “user key” in the above illustration) is a key that’s only use is for this purpose. The other key (or key-ring as the case may be) is typically a building master.

This system has been in use within the residence halls since Summer 2007.  College employees no longer carry keys that will gain access to student living spaces, rather they have release keys.  Should they need to access a student room by use of key, the employee utilizes a sequence lock to obtain the room key.  The employee cannot reclaim their uniquely-identifiable release key until the building master is restored to its secured position.

Appendix B

Proximity Credential Types

There are two types of proximity credentials currently in use on campus.  The most common and widespread is the dual-technology proximity ID card:

The proximity ID provides two technologies used across campus – proximity chip and magnetic stripe.  The proximity chip is used solely for access control.  The magnetic stripe supports the vending and dining services.  Finally, the card allows for printing which allows it to serve as college ID.  While the card provides convenience of serving so many functions within one device, it is relatively fragile.The proximity key fob is a single purpose device.  The key fob contains a proximity chip within a tough plastic case.  The case also provides means for attaching it to a key ring.

Appendix C

Committee Membership

Steve Dangler

University Police

James Hendrick   

Residential Life and Housing

Steve Lundberg    

Physical Plant

Eamon O’Shea (Chair)

University Police

Tim Slack

Physical Plant

Lynda Sweet

Biology Department

Susan Wilson

Recreation, Parks and Leisure Studies


Committee on Committee’s Report

Submitted by Joanne Barry

Committee on Committees

Committee on Committees – Report to the Faculty Senate

September 21, 2010

Item #1

The Committee on Committees recommends the following appointments for committees:  These appointments require confirmation by the Faculty Senate.

Student Affairs Committee

Fine Arts/Humanities (2010-12) – Martine Barnaby

Long Range Planning Committee

Education (2010-13) – Shufang Shi

Math/Science (2010-13) – Mary Gfeller

College Curriculum Review Committee

Education (2010-12) – Katina Sayers-Walker

College Research Committee

Social/Behavioral Sciences (spring 2011 sabbatical replacement) – Judy Ouellette (replacing Kim Kraebel)

Item #2

The Faculty Senate Secretary cast a ballot as follows:

Committee on Committees:

Math/Science (2010-12) -Theresa Curtis

Item #3

Ballots were distributed electronically for Faculty Senate Treasurer.  The nominee is Kathy Lawrence and the voting deadline is Friday, September 24, 2010, 4:00 p.m. 

Item #4

A call for nominations has been issued for the following Consultative Search Committees with a nomination deadline of Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 4:00 p.m.:

Dean, School of Education

Dean, School of Professional Studies

Director of Advisement and Transition

Director of the Clark Center for International Education

Director of Public Relations

A call for nominations has been issued for the following Faculty Senate positions with a nomination deadline of Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 4:00 p.m.:

SUNY Senator (complete unexpired term, 2009-12)

Fine Arts/Humanities Senator (2010-12)

School of Professional Studies Senator (complete unexpired term, 2009-11)

Item #5

The following vacancies still exist and no nominations have been received:

At Large

  • Faculty Representatives to the Student Senate – 2 seats, elected, 1-year term (Boland, Shi)


  • General Education Committee – appointed, 2-year term (Schubert)
  • Student Affairs Committee – appointed, 2-year term (Ahmadi)

Social/Behavioral Sciences

  • Committee on Committees – elected, 2009-11 (complete unexpired term; vacant) 

School of Education

  • Academic Faculty Affairs Committee - appointed, 2-year term (Rayle)  

School of Professional Studies

  • General Education Committee – appointed, 2-year term (Hendrick) 
  • Student Affairs Committee – appointed, 2-year term (Davis

Respectfully submitted,

Joanne Barry