November
28, 2006
SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Spitzer, D. Miller, D. West, L. Anderson, J.
Governali, J. Hendrick, J. Rayle, E. Jampole, J. Mosher, D. Sidebottom, J.
Sitterly, V. Marty, B. tobin, D. Ritchie, J. Walkuski, P.Schroeder, K. Boyes,
M. Scala, C. Schacht, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, R. Peagler,
W. Shaut, E. McCabe, J. Cottone, D. Ritchie, D. Kreh, M. Connell, M. Mcguire
SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: I. Jubran, K. Lawrence, P.Quaglio, G. Zarate, J.
Casciani, S. VanEtten, M. Ware(class conflict fall 2006), B. Schechter,�
GUESTS PRESENT:� G.Levine,N. Aumann, R. Franco, P. Koryzno, R.
Olsson, M. Prus, Y.Murnane
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes from November 14, 2006 were approved.
III. SENATE ACTIONS:
There was a vote to congratulate Relay for Life who
raised $35,000 for charity (Passed by acclamation)
There was a vote to approve the EPC Proposal regarding
changes to the Curriculum Change Guide (Passed)
There was a vote to extend appreciation to the members
of the Curriculum Task Force, EPC and everyone else involved in the three year
process regarding changes to the Curriculum Change Guide (Passed)
There was a vote to refer the EPC Proposal regarding
proposed changes in membership on the College Curriculum Review Committee
(Passed)
There was a vote to approve the proposal regarding the
Multi-Cultural Life Council (Passed)
There was a vote to approve Leslie Eaton and Nanette
Pasquarello to the University Police Advisory Board (Passed)
IV. CHAIR�S REPORT:
Chairman King reported on the slate of candidates for
Faculty Governance Review Committee.� He
explained that since the handbook says the committee should be elected by the
faculty, the Chair had planned to distribute mail ballots to the Senators, �however, D. Berger had something he wanted to
discuss beforehand.
D. Berger said, �Several of my constituent suggested
that since this is such an important issue we should have the whole faculty in
on it rather than just the Faculty Senate and by asking the very few people who
are involved in the process now to vote on the possibility of looking at a
different organization doesn't seem right. So, one point is for the whole
faculty referendum rather than the whole Senate.�
There was a motion from the floor which was seconded.
B. Spitzer said, � I am really confused. The Senate
talked about a faculty referendum for the recommendations of the committee?�
M. King responded, �He's talking about a faculty
election.�
B. Spitzer replied, �You mean election for the members
of the committee?�
Chairman King and D. Berger replied in the negative
explaining that they had misspoken.
M. King: said, �Just to clarify it.� There is a slate of candidates, and I had in
fact prepared a ballot, and now the motion on the floor is to distribute that
ballot to the entire voting faculty rather than to just the voting members of
the Senate so that should be what we are discussing.�
D. Ritchie asked, �May I ask whether there are
contests of these members or is there a slate of contests?�
M. King said, �Two are contested. And there are
obviously lines for write-ins.�
J. Hendrick said, �I think that since it is already
November 28th, delaying this with an all college referendum would just delay
things longer.� I think the committee
needs to work and Faculty Senators have been elected to represent their
constituents and vote on their behalf, at this point. I would vote against that
and say that we should just vote on this ourselves.�
J. Walkuski stated, �This particular motion goes
against what is outlined in the handbook and what you are proposing actually,
Dave, constitutes a change in policy. I don't think we can do that. I am
against the motion.�
M. King replied, �According to the handbook we can
pretty much do it if we want to.��
D. Kreh said, �Committees shall be elected by the
Faculty Senate but nominees should be prepared by Committee on Committees and
it goes on to talk about the duties of the committees. Certainly it's in the
purview of the Faculty Senate to determine how to do that and if the Senate, in
its wisdom, wishes to expand the vote then it's up to the Senate, in my
opinion.�
R. Spitzer responded, �I think the sense of this is
laudable but I think the notion to have the Senate vote on the committee is
permissible since the agenda of the committee hasn't yet been set above and
beyond being charged to look at the prospect of amending the bylaws. I would
presume that a call would go out to the full faculty if anybody wants to submit
their suggestions and ideas. I would respectfully suggest a vote on the
committee be done by the Senate.�
K. Alwes said, � I understand why Senator Berger is
coming up with this, but it�s in line with the idea that people outside the
Senate ignore the Senate and really have nothing to do with it in many ways.
It's a way to bring in people's interest. As Bob says the idea is laudable and
I think it might be a good way to show people what is going on in the Senate.�
M. King asked for further discussion.
D. Berger asked, �In terms of amending the rules or
not, as you say, we could do that?�
D. Kreh said, �It's the bylaws of the body. The body
can interpret the bylaws as they wish. There's nothing illegal or sub-rosa or
anything else about it, that's simply a fact. If the body wishes to interpret a
clause in its own bylaws they may do so.�
L. Anderson responded, �I think regarding the motion
that there's an underlying assumption that those of us currently involved in
the Faculty Senate don't want to see it changed and I think that's a false
assumption. I think it's an unnecessary action.�
M. King said, �Are we ready to vote on the question?
The vote is to conduct a referendum and a yes vote is to conduct a referendum
and a no vote will be a mail ballot to the Senators only. So those in favor of
conducting a referendum say aye.�
J. Walkuski interjected, �I just have a point of
order. Isn't it typically the procedure based on governance bodies if a motion
is brought forth, and first my problem is, it's not in writing.� Secondly, most motions suggest we have time
to suggest we talk to our constituents and then there's a next meeting where we
vote on the motion.� Is this an emergency
issue?� Is that why we are voting on it
at this time?�
M. King said, �It was a motion made from the floor.
Any Senator can make a motion from the floor at any time. The Senate could
refer it to the Steering Committee if the Senate wants to but I haven't heard
anybody suggest that."
The motion was voted on and the outcome was that no
referendum was to be conducted.
�
V. VICE CHAIR�S REPORT:
K. Alwes - No report.
VI. SECRETARY�S REPORT:
D. Berger said, �The treasury dues are� coming in as we speak.�
VIII. PRESIDENT�S REPORT:
President Bitterbaum reported on news from both the
federal and state levels, especially in light of the election and a new
Governor, Democratic Speaker and House of Representatives and some probable new
initiatives.� Dr. Bitterbaum explained in
a view he shared with the deans that morning some facts saying, �30% of our
high school students drop out before they graduate. What is even more troubling
and if you take a hundred ninth graders in the United States only 80% would get
their bachelor's degrees within six years. And this is starting to enter the
process with our public and our legislators and�
this is what they would expect to find in a third world country and not
in a first world country. I think you are going to see in Time Magazine and
other places, we need a new national vision to double the number of college
graduates in the near future because of�
the number of college educated people who come from our public
institutions. They talk about four main areas. First of all it has to do with
preparation.� What� preparation�
is happening in elementary, middle and high school? Second, admissions
and financial aid. Third, retention and success is being discussed."� Bitterbaum went on to express that it is a
real conundrum for the general public, those who go from a two year college to
a four year college without a seamless transition. He indicated we do have 32
community colleges and those students have expectations of moving onto a four
year college, which is more at the federal level.� The President went on to say, "First of
all academic success and success in the majors in the business community.� We are going to be looked at as far as
success in the majors, biology, literature, how to write and especially writing
skills. Acquisition of general education; are they broadly educated, do they
have an awareness of creativity in the world, how the world works, cognitive
skills, critical thinking, preparation for adulthood and personal
accomplishment? I am sure that will be teased out, but I am sure we need to
have a broad discussion on this.� One
area, student affairs and academic affairs working together, students'
extra-curricular activity seems to show progress, not just in the classroom
activity, graduate from support in life, etc. As we move forwards these are
some of the issues, one is access. I was telling Elizabeth and the deans we are
very proud of the fact last year we had ten thousand applications.� So, the will is there but there will be a lot
of discussion about affordability. We have to have this discussion. The other
thing is economic advancement and economic growth.� We are different than a Buffalo or an Albany.�
He also mentioned the need for strengthening articulation agreements between
schools and undergraduate research, funding, among many of the specific goals
the President wanted to mention as things that really need to be accomplished.
K. Alwes asked, in reference to preparation for
adulthood, �We are going to learn before we attempt it?�
E. Bitterbaum said, �Preparation for adulthood?�
K. Alwes said, �That's going to come with directions?��
E. Bitterbaum responded, �I think we are preparing our
students for personal accomplishment.�
IX. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Long Range Planning Committee � D.
Ritchie, no report.
Educational Policy Committee � SEE Old
Business.
Student Affairs Committee � M.
Connell, Chair � The chair reported, �Student Affairs hasn't been doing a whole
lot� and he expressed his desire to rectify that. He said that he has been
meeting with officers and working with Dr. Peagler and any of you who have
concerns from your students please feel free to contact me as chair.�
Faculty Affairs Committee � G.
Clarke, Chair � No report (absent)
College Research Committee � No
report.
General Education Committee � M.
McGuire, Chair � The Chair reported that her committee went to joint chairs and
gave examples of what the categories of new procedures would look like. The EPC
referred a proposal that came out of the GE implementation task force extending
wavers for the unique Cortland GE to students who are first time college
students but have taken 20 credits or more of college credit during high
school. She indicated that currently wavers are being extended to high school
students as an effort to insure seamless transition to the four year programs.
It will also be extended to first year students who have taken community
college credit while in high school or passed an AP exam or a CLEP exam.
McGuire stated that the GE Committee discussed it and voted against
recommending passage of that proposal.
J. Governali asked, �One question. So, the GE
committee has voted not to support the recommendation?�
M. McGuire said, �That's correct.�
J. Governali responded, �And now it goes to the EPC
for review?�
J. Cottone replied, �We discussed it this morning.�
Committee on Committees � E. McCabe reported the slate of candidates for the
Governance Review Committee: Two reps from Arts and Sciences, Howard Botwinick,
Randy Storch, Donna West. Two reps from Education, Andrea LaChance, Joseph
Rayle; two reps from Professional Studies, Kath Howarth, Jeff Walkuski, Susan
Wilson; Two reps from Professional Staff, Glenn Clarke; one librarian, Ellen
McCabe; Virginia Levine, Executive Assistant to the President.
McCabe stated that the above slate would be going out
by mail soon.
XII. AREA SENATOR�S REPORTS:
Chairman King asked everyone to approve two individuals
who have agreed to serve on the University Police Advisory Committee, Leslie
Eaton and Nanette Pasquarello. They were approved.
XIII. SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT � M. Ware �
No report {SEE New Business}
XIV. STUDENT SENATOR�S REPORTS:
K. Boyes announced that the Winter Formal is being
held on December 7th in Ithaca and is open to all faculty and staff. She
encouraged anyone interested to contact anyone in the SGA Office. Tickets will
go one sale this Friday.� Boyes also
reported that the previous night Donna Margine came and spoke to student
government about the changes in the CAPP report [1], reporting that it went very well.� went over very well. The SGA President
reported that assistance will be given to students regarding the new GE Program
and they will be looking for faculty�s help along with NYPIRG.� She reported that Relay for Life raised
$43,000 this year which was followed by a hearty round of applause. C. Schact
also added that members who were involved from Student Government made the
cover of the Syracuse Post Standard subsections of that day�s paper..
M. Connell asked, �Why is the formal in Ithaca?�
Boyes explained that their public relations tried to
get more students thinking that another area might get more interested. She
further added that other locations they looked at in Cortland were already
booked for the season.
X. OLD BUSINESS:
J. Cottone referred to the Curriculum Change Guide
which was introduced at the last meeting.
M. King called for discussion of the new proposed
curriculum change guidelines.
D. Berger said, �I want to express support for it. At
the Steering Committee it came to my attention that the system was more
complicated now than it needs to be so I think this is an excellent way to make
the whole process easier, and so I am supporting it.�
J. Governali said, �Are we talking about the
curriculum proposal and not the composition of the committee?�
M. King explained that it was a two part proposal and
the current discussion was regarding the curriculum change guide.
K. Alwes said, �It is certainly one that I really
applaud and find clear and cogent.� Thank
you.�
The Chair called for a vote and it carried.
The Provost said, �I would like to request that the
faculty extend a vote of thanks to the members of the Task Force, EPC and all
involved in this, three year process. This part the other part is four years, I
think extend our thanks.�
J. Cottone explained the second item of business
regarding changing the membership on the College Curriculum Review Committee.
He reviewed the two page document with the proposal on front and rationale on
the back, and also explained that he asked Cindy Benton to be in attendance to
answer any questions.�
M. Scala said, �Two weeks ago we spoke about no
student members thing at the Faculty Senate.�
My question is, why all of a sudden do we go from two student members to
no student members at all?� We are the
one taking the classes, engaged in the curriculum of the college. I am just
curious.�
C. Benton responded, �I think they have that in the
rationale. I agree. I would love to have students who are capable and willing
to serve on this committee but in the last ten years when we have a student who
is willing to serve I find that to be a showstopper. I can do my commercial. I
actually had trouble getting the committee together when I constituted it this
summer when I tried to find out who represented what.�
C. Schacht said, �I was at the second Senate meeting
where the list of students interested in serving on committees was distributed
and checked the minutes and it was included.�
Two students signed up and were never really contacted about it.� If they weren't really contacted then how
could they be included?�
C. Benton responded, �The list I was given had no
students on it, so that was my fault.�
M. Scala said, �The new students we have are very
active.� We are very interested. Since
this proposal has come up allowing against student representation, each of our
senators is very active.� A lot of issues
that are taken care of on campus, I feel that if this were to be some kind of
mandate it definitely would have representation. I just feel that since we are
the ones, the students are the ones who actually should have some kind of say
in this, not just faculty, not just when faculty feel that we should be
involved in the entire process as students."
J. Cottone responded, �One of the things we discussed
at EPC, with this regarded the voting quorum and when business is not able to
be conducted. That was also a big issue.�
Some times you may not have been able to vote, because two students were
not present, for other reasons that came up since I have been on EPC.� I did contact those students and neither one
has come the entire semester.� I think
particularly, in this case where most faculty submit the proposal something
like that has come up; the proposal that may not make it into the next catalog.�
M. Scala said, �That is completely understandable, I
am sorry.�
D. Ritchie said, �When do these changes take
place?� We do have a committee that has
been dealing with these kinds of issues and it sounds like the perfect thing to
be given to that committee. Is there a quest to have this done so that next
semester the committee will be not having any student reps and will be down to
one from these represented areas?�
M. King responded, �This is a handbook change so it
has to go to a faculty referendum. It's going to be the beginning of the next
semester when it will be done. What we are doing today is depending on whether
the faculty approve it or not, as a handbook change it has to go to a faculty
referendum.�
J. Governali said, �I not convinced this is a handbook
change but...that's not my initial concern. I've got two concerns, one the
committee size. The committee has been too large and is still too large, even
now, as it stands. It is hard to get quorum or meeting time, when it comes to
the minute details of this proposal, the committee has to deal with this
issue� rather than some of the
substantive curricular issues.� If you
look at the minutes the last few years there has not been a quorum. The
majority of members were administrators and non teaching faculty.
Representation should more directly affect curriculum.� The problem of the proposal is that it does
not do this. The Dean's office is represented at three levels of curricular change
at the school level, the dean�s office and college curriculum level. It does
not seem a consistent faculty prerogative, doesn't reflect that at all. Non
teaching faculty constitute half of committee membership when you include
different groups and the ex officio member without vote, because of their
position in the college, because they are permanent members of committee. Half
the committee are almost permanent members of non teaching faculty, nominated
permanent members on the committee. I recommend consistency and as far as
taking action on this at this point in time that it goes to the Faculty
Governance Review Committee and they be charged with working on the structure
and making a recommendation to the Faculty Senate."
There was a motion to refer which was seconded.
R. Spitzer said, �I think the motion to refer is
correct and I agree with everything Joe has said.�
D. Berger said �I also agree with Joe.�
J. Hendrick said, �Of the 9 voting members I see that
7 of them are faculty so I see that as a pretty large percentage.��
M. King said, �This is on referral, not on the
original motion. The motion to refer to the governance review committee.�
J. Hendrick responded, �Right, well one of his points
why he wanted to refer it addressed that. That was my comment. Thank you.�
M. King said, �Are we ready to vote on the motion to
refer?�� The motion carried to refer
proposed changes in membership on the College Curriculum Review Committee to
the Faculty Governance Review Committee.
�����������������
������**********************************************************
M. King announced the second item under Old Business,
the Multicultural Life Proposal, which was introduced at the last meeting two
weeks prior and on the agenda for discussion and vote that day.
R. Spitzer asked, �Point of order. We are voting on
what?��
M. King responded, �Establishing the Multi-cultural
Life Council proposal which has been on the web for everyone to look at.�
The Provost explained that three recommendations came
forward from the Joint Chair's Council the week before.� She said, "One is built into the plan as
an assessment program so whatever action you think needs be modified, and
number two that it might be confusing with the Multicultural Life Office, so
that a name change might be considered, and a third, that there be a liaison
from Multicultural and Gender Studies Center to the Multicultural Life
Council." The Provost clarified that those were the three recommendations.
M. King confirmed, �So, that's part of the proposal.�
K. Alwes said, �The idea of the Multicultural and
Gender Studies Council having a liaison was very important to them so I am
glad.�
L. Anderson said, �If I may just clarify.� We will vote on the concept of the proposal but
the name may change.�
Provost Davis-Russell said, �The person who made the
recommendation did not propose a name change but everyone offered that it is
important to keep multi-cultural in the name.�
D. Berger said, �I appreciate having some information
before we vote. If you could briefly make a statement indicating what or why we
need this when we already have, at least, a governance structure. You said last
time you would review it again.�
Provost Davis-Russell said, �Anyone around the table
who can add to the discussion, Ray, I would count on you to do that as well to
join in.�
Vice President Franco said, "You can begin and I
will jump in. Want me to come over there and we will harmonize?"
Provost Davis-Russell said, �David, in response to
your question that this council is more representative of the college because
the college is represented at every division, I think that Kathy Lawrence, in
her support last week of the proposal, stated succinctly when she said that,
heretofore, the problems consist of a small group of people working to advance
the college in this area and that this proposal makes it a total college
responsibility. Secondly, as we look at populations within the college and
strategic goals we noted there were populations of underrepresented students
who need some attention, not just the students but also the campus
requirements. Also, in the area of retention, we want to make Cortland a more
culturally competent institution. So, the effort then as having a broader
thrust to do that to engage us, take it away Ray.�
R. Franco said, �In addition there's a community
component. The college is not an island unto itself. When you include students
in college you include them in the community as well and it is broad based, a
component to the community to try to make this a supportive place for our
students. Again, I think it does speak to a focus and emphasis on recruiting
and graduating underrepresented students. While we have improved over the last
5-7 years in both those areas we are lagging behind our peer institutions at
SUNY and our ability to rank underrepresented students to graduate them to be
successful in their careers. And again, we think our efforts include
multicultural life and establish a pattern there and then support of the broad
based community.�
K. Alwes said, �So, you're saying it's going to be
focused both on the academic life and the community life?�
R. Franco said, �Focus on the community, not just the
campus community at large."
Chairman King asked for questions or comments.
E. Jampole said, �Why not go out to all of Cortland
County instead of just the city of Cortland? What happens to gender issues and
women's issues? We seem to go into the proposal talking about racial
minorities, then all minorities, and then back to racial minorities. Have we
looked at the hospitals and school districts?�
How about getting the Empire Zone involved?� Whoever has applied to Empire Zone has to
agree to hire x number, x percentage of minorities. Are we also looking to
recruit economically poor people?� A lot
of this does seem redundant. The structure seems to be redundant. As a graduate
student, on page 2 number 4 under the structure, recruitment and retention of
students, where we talk about retention and increasing graduate students, but
we don' do anything for them. GE curriculum isn't going to help graduate
students, they don't take GE classes. A lot of departments recruit diverse
faculty and students. Those are just some of the questions that we raised.�
R. Franco: �The major focus on multi cultural gender
studies center is still focused on gender issues. There's been rumor that this
in some way necessitates the destruction of the Multi Cultural and Gender
Studies which is not accurate.� Multi
Cultural and Gender Studies has been working to redefine itself and focus more
on teaching and faculty issues, looking at gender studies, etc.� These are pertinent issues.� Extending this, I am not sure if I heard you
correctly, but when we talk about this we are talking about three distinct areas
that are interrelated, we are not talking about hiring people for hospitals, we
are looking at the student population. If you look at the strategic plan, three
things we talked about there, one is increasing recruiting and retaining and
graduation under represented students. Two is increasing diversity of the
curriculum, not only at the GE level but also at the level of the major. And
the third area is making the campus and Cortland community the kind of climate
that is welcoming, that says, I as a person from an under represented group
feel that at home on campus, but also feel at home when I walk downtown
Cortland, rather than be afraid that with�
every step I take someone's going to be trailing me on the assumption I
am going to rob or steal something, as our student's were accosted as JC
Penney's Department Store, that's the focus. What is the cultural competence
question?� It comes from looking not only
at personal confidence but institutional confidence, where the institution has
put in place policies and practices that make those three thing possible, that
in essence recognizes that those things have not happened consistently and so
there is an effort to do that. Sometimes that means that the policies and
practices of the institution may have to be modified to achieve those goals,
that is the thrust. What I heard you making reference to what happens to
graduate students, it is true, talking more about undergraduate students, I
agree with you that bias does exist. I have been trying to honor it.� But as far as our graduate students, the
first goal to increase diversity of graduate students will hold as it does for
our undergraduate students. The third regarding creating a climate where they
feel welcome will also hold. I think when we talk about graduate students we
also have to understand that many of them are not residential undergraduate
students here, looking at the campus climate; we create safe places on campus
including dormitories to make the changes in the campus climate. I don't know
if I have addressed all the issues you raised.�
E. Jampole said, �What made you think we are the be
all and end all?�
R. Franco replied, �Good question. I don't think we
are the be all and end all. It is somewhat limited. I think it has to be
dealing with some of the issues of underrepresented students. You mentioned the
EOP Program. We are looking at EOP; realistically or legally it is responsible
for all ethnic and minority students on campus by law in the� program. So, this is broader than any others.
The city is where we have most frequent interactions. We've also had experience
trying to draw in; students show up for committee meetings, council reps for
whatever reasons. We try to or have in the past tried to have a dialogue for
the whole community, creating an atmosphere for our students, focusing on the
city where most interactions take place, and gaining the greatest luck in terms
of getting cooperation by area officials. Elizabeth mentioned a comment concerning
undergraduate students. I will comment on that. I agree with we are doing
everything we can to recruit graduate students from the broadest socio economic
spectrum to educate them. This committee is going to focus on that but I do
think the college should absolutely look at what we can do for working class
students who are poor on campus.�
Chairman King asked for any other discussion.
R. Peagler said, �I have personally lived in this
community for over 30 years now. The college has talked around this issue for
many, many years. There always appears to be a number of obstacles precluding
this committee from doing something for students who come from diverse
backgrounds. That's been our tradition. This document is a work in progress. It
is not a panacea. �It's an opportunity to
really get some of those things back in place and to do the kind of things we
have to do to retain ethnic diversity. I have lived in this community so I know
what it�s like. This is a document to help that process. Is it an end all? We
need to look at resources to help students who experience difficulties
adjusting.� Adjustment is big enough if
you are Caucasian or Jewish student, but when you are from a diverse background
it makes it that much more difficult.��
D. Ritchie said, �My take and the take of my
constituents is that its hard to think about voting against something like
this. It looks from the outset to be the traditional Cortland solution to any
problems, get a bunch of committees together. And as a person who serves on committees
I understand that and I and a lot of us here commit ourselves to doing
that.� I guess my question is this really
going to move us any further forward than we've been moving for the last 25
years?� Rich, if you're willing, and
Elizabeth you're willing, to say this is the way we ought to be moving forward
I might just go along with that.�
Provost Davis-Russell said, �David I don't know if I
am willing to give you a written guarantee. I'd be foolish to do that because
we are dealing with people who are working on the committee giving their time
and energy to make this happen. What I will say to you is that given my own
experience at institutions and work to help institutions to prepare for
diversity that some of what we have proposed is if people are willing to serve
and commit themselves to achieve that's as far as I will go. I won't give you
any guarantees.�
R. Peagler, �I will say the same thing.�
D. Ritchie, �What I am interested is, is there someone
who is paid to do this?� Are we hiring
someone to do this? This is a lot of volunteering and volunteering goes so far.
When someone has it as their job responsibility, their job description to do
this.� We have multi life coordinators.� Those seem to be the only people who are paid
to pay attention to these issues. I am interested in whether or not the Provost
and Vice President didn't think about adding paid individuals to take on these
responsibilities?�
Provost Davis-Russell said, �This is the life and work
of the college. I understand that if you are paid to do something, sitting
around the table someone who is paid to do something specific. Yet the work of
the college extends beyond what we are paid to do. As people who serve on
curriculum committee are not paid to do that but it is part of the college�s
business and it cannot be relegated to only a couple of individuals. It has to
be a commitment by this entire institution, and if we are not able to make that
commitment let's not delude ourselves at this point.�
D. Ritchie: �I am sorry, Elizabeth. I am sorry that
you misunderstood me. I meant that these people be paid to lead the rest of us.�
M. Scala: I just had two questions. By
underrepresented students are you talking about African American, Latino,
Native Americans?� And going back to not excluding
we have to include all of the students not just 'quote/unquote'� underrepresented students. Because just from
my standpoint, to me my question is like, what exactly defines underrepresented
students?� If this is what they are
defining what those specific categories are, I don't think I agree with that
because I think it is there are a lot of students who are underrepresented, not
just say 'quote/unquote' minority students.�
I feel personally an underrepresented person.� I came from a rough neighborhood. This
category type thing, when you refer to an underrepresented student is it these
four cats or is it just more?� There are
underrepresented students on this campus that aren�t...�
Provost Davis-Russell responded, �Two perspectives on
what has to happen in order for the institution to be culturally competent.
What is the goal that we set for all students, rather than race, ethnicity and
gender?� And that is an agenda for all
students. When you graduate from this institution our expectation is that there
is certain knowledge and behaviors that you graduate with as a citizen of the
world.� The second is if you are asking
as to a definition of those four underrepresented populations, that's not to
say that anybody else is not also an underrepresented population, but the data
shows that we are not doing well with those four populations . They are coming,
dropping out; they are not graduating."
M. Scala clarified the emphasis on these groups but
asked that we not only focus on these groups but reach out to all groups of
underrepresented students.�
K. Alwes said, �Having been chair of Multi Cultural
and Gender Studies Council for 4 years I understand David Ritchie. The usual
response in Cortland is to have a committee. In a lesser ideal world the Multi
Cultural and Gender Studies Council would be enough to work with these issues.
We have another council, the Multi Cultural Life Council. Just as in Multi
Cultural and Gender Studies, the greater amount of people doesn't insure the greater
amount of work will be� successfully� accomplished.�
I was sitting here thinking that it really is very similar to the
optimism and the whole idea that we had when meetings� first began because some of us were� involved�
in its� beginning. We can't say
that it is redefining itself. If we have something else, if that's true, we
have probably seen the last of the Multi Cultural and Gender Studies because
there won't be a reason to redefine itself.�
I am not saying it's taking anything away from this proposal because I
think it's a fine proposal. But I also understand because when we are saying
the council we are redefining it so it doesn't take a lot from the original
council.�
J. Rayle said, �I'd like to move to table this
proposal.�
The motion was seconded by K. Alwes.
D. Berger asked if it was debatable.
M. King replied, �Debatable, in other words, reasons
to table.�
Rayle said, �I have to teach class.�
M. King said, "I think it's an important
conversation and an important issue and we could send it to the Steering
Committee for clarification.
D. Berger said, �Table it indefinitely or until the
next meeting?�
M. King said, �Make a motion to postpone?�
D. Kreh said, �Postpone instead of table.�
J. Rayle said, �I would like to change to postpone.�
M. King said, �We would accept that as a friendly
change.�
M. King asked for discussion on the motion to
postpone.
R. Spitzer asked, �When's the next Senate meeting?�
M. King responded, �Next semester.�
R. Spitzer said, �Did you say there is a meeting
December 12th?�
M. King responded, �There is not, according to what I
remember.�
M. Scala asked, �If this is tabled can the committees
start working on them?�
Someone responded in the negative.
M. Scala said, "If this is tabled until February
does that mean that the committee can't start working on these issues? I don't
think we should postpone it any longer.�
J. Rayle said, �I thought there was a meeting two
weeks. Then I withdraw the motion.�
D. Berger asked, �What is the sense here, policies and
programs, are those policies and programs?�
Provost Davis-Russell said, �If there are college
policies they will go to the appropriate bodies.�
Since J. Rayle withdrew his motion to postpone
Chairman King reminded the Senate floor, �We are voting on the main question is
to endorse support of the multi cult life council.�
D. Kreh said, �The reason I said we should vote on the
motion to postpone because once a motion is made it is no longer the maker's
option it is the body's option so if the body wishes to proceed with the vote
it chooses to do so, we won't be subjected, commotion, it is no longer the
maker's.�
A vote was taken and the measure passed by a majority
vote.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
D. Ritchie passed out the resolution regarding SUNY
access to electronic databases explaining emanating from the University Faculty
Senate.� Senator Ritchie explained that
the University Faculty Senate is asking for individual Faculty Senate�s in the
SUNY system for their endorsement and support.�
Ritchie said, �It is essentially stating that while there is funding
right now such as in the library, electronic databases that exist for us, these
are fairly general�It will provide more resources or at least provide that the
SUNY system look for a funding mechanism and a way to supply more research and
teaching databases for scholarly endeavors around the university."
There was a motion to endorse.�
D. Berger asked if it would be voted on in the spring.
Chairman King responded, �That's correct. The
parliamentarian says it's on the agenda so we can vote. There was no discussion
and the motion carried.
President Bitterbaum encouraged everyone to take
advantage of the holiday cookies and refreshments provided by the President�s
Office before leaving.
Respectfully Submitted:
Barbara Kissel
Recording Secretary
The following reports are appended to the minutes in
the order they are submitted:
(1) Multi-Cultural Life Proposal submitted by
Provost Elizabeth Davis-Russell.
(2) Proposed Changes to SUNY Cortland�s Curriculum
Change Guidelines/SUNY Cortland Curriculum Change Guide.
(3) Proposal for Change in the handbook: Chapter
150.03 Article VII, Section F regarding changing membership on the College
Curriculum Review Committee.
(4)� Proposal
from University Faculty Senate regarding acquisition of databases.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
[1]SCNote
wording change in wording: "changes in the CAPP report,"