FACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO. 3
October 5, 2004
1.� CALL TO ORDER: The 3rd
meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2004-2005 was called to order at 1:15 PM on ,
2004 in the Corey Union Fireplace Lounge by Chair Ram Chaturvedi.
SENATORS AND MEMBERS
PRESENT: R. Chaturvedi, J. Rayle, P.
Buckenmeyer, D. Driscoll, P. Walsh, K. Alwes, L. Anderson, J. Cottone, J.
Hokanson, J. Rayle, B. Griffen, K. Pristash, E. McCabe, A. Young, P. Schroeder,
D. Vegas, D. Kirschner
SENATORS AND MEMBERS
ABSENT: J. Peluso, A. Henderson-Harr,
T. Phillips, B. Shaut, E. Bitterbaum
GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, J. Mosser, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson, M. Prus,
P. McGinnis, C. DeGouff, N. Libous
II. SENATE ACTIONS:
There was a motion to approve
the Student Laundry Resolution as amended (Passed)
There was a motion to approve
the motion, as amended, regarding formation of a Faculty Senate Ad Hoc
Committee on Reconstruction (Passed)
III CHAIR�S REPORT:
The Chair reported that he
had attended the Chair�s council meetings of the School of Education and
Professional Studies to seek their help in filling vacancies on the various
Senate committees. He was very happy to announce that his plea drew positive
responses.� At The Steering Committee
three issues were considered: 1) ROTC; 2) Reconstruction of the Senate; and 3)
SGA Student Laundry Resolution.� Further
action on the ROTC issue is postponed until contact is made with a
representative from Cornell University. The other two issues will be presented
shortly.� The Chair plans to attend the
SUNY University Faculty Senate meeting to be held at Maritime College 10/21,22
and 23.�� The chair offered to convey any
messages or concerns that anyone has.
In response to a question
from J. Rayle, the chair responded that the ROTC representative will be
presenting a talk to the Senate, and subsequently the Steering Committee will
consider the issue and bring a resolution forward as to its recommendation.
IV.� SECRETARY�S REPORT:
No report.
V.� PRESIDENT�S REPORT:
{See Provost�s Report}
VI. VICE PRESIDENT�S
REPORT:
Provost Davis-Russell
presented the administration�s report in the absence of President Bitterbaum.
The Provost first spoke to the budget and explained, at this point, that the
budget has been determined, although we it is not known yet what may be vetoed
by the Governor.� She further reported
that the administration has been told to be prepared for two difficult years in
the next two years. She stated that Vice President William Shaut is putting
together a campus mailing.� In terms of
personnel issues, there are a number of searches in place. She is waiting to hear
from the Senate regarding members for three searches her office is conducting:
Associate Provost for Curriculum Management and two Associate Deans.� The committees are needed to be constituted
as soon as possible to start their business. There is a search going on for
Director of the Budget in Business and Finance. She asked G. Levine how the
search was progressing and Levine answered that interviews would start that
week.
The Academic Affairs Office
is also searching for Associate Director for the Office of Institutional
Research and Assessment because the director is on extended medical leave. It
is a critical office so they hope to get someone in there soon.� Dennis Weaver and his wife came to campus and
gave a presentation, as well as speeches around the campus.� The last one was in Brown Auditorium where he
talked about Ecolonomics, which is a combination of Ecology and Economics.
Davis-Russell commented that Weaver was quite impressed with how we, as a
campus, strive to conserve various containments that separate trash from
recycled material, which made a great impression him. She hoped that students
would learn something from the talk so they can apply it during their stay
here. Visitors are here from �partners abroad,� she stated. Four faculty spent
three weeks here, from Anadula University, whom we will be having a dual degree
program with along with TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language.) The
faculty there have written back to H. Steck and J. LeLoup expressing how
impressed they are, particularly with ASAP.�
They indicated they are going to pressure their president into
developing a service like ours at Anadula. There have also been visitors from
Nice University, which is another partnership program that J. Steck
coordinated.� Last weekend was Parent�s
Weekend.
Vice President Franco gave
his report, about Parents weekend, where there was a panel of four parents,
with 60 parents in attendance, consisting mostly of freshmen parents, concerned
about adjustments and assessments of the various aspects of the program.
Vice President Mosser
announced his office hosted Kevin Rowell, class of �83, on September 30. Kevin
served as Executive in Residence and was found to be very interesting.� As Mosser stated, he was �definitely one of
our successful Cortland alumni. He is Executive Vice President of the Charles
Schwab Co.� The company has 1 trillion
dollars and Kevin�s division manages 330 billion. He taught in two of Tim
Phillips� classes and also met with some students of Tom Mwanika and Sam
Kelley. He also met with Dean Prus and President Bitterbaum. He will be coming
back again on October 21.� Mosser then
asked P. Koryzno to say something about the College Community Appreciation
Award.
Koryzno stated that this is
our 30th year for the College Communication Appreciation Award given
out by the College Council to honor someone in the community through their
actions or words, or who has actually benefitted the college in some fashion,
and in some instances, has gone to donors. This year the College Council has
decided to honor James Seward in his contribution to the college since 1986.
Senator Seward �has been a good friend to the college. It�s not hard to make a
case for him. He is very supportive of the college and the district.�
Vice President Franco
reported on a Sandwich Seminar sponsored by his office the prior week,
including a booklet, �Person to Person Links,� which he passed around. It
reflects a number of faculty and staff, trying to get a handle on how our
students are connected to the campus and community. He said, �The purpose of
the Sandwich Seminar was not only to get information, but also continue
dialogue and conversation on campus at the department, individual and college
level, in terms of how we can do a better job in raising our students and feel
part of college community.� He offered to
come to any departmental meeting across campus.�
He complimented the Senate Chair for his attendance at the meeting and
support. The Chair responded that it is an excellent report and everyone should
read it.
Alwes asked, �Is the search
for the Director of Institutional Research going to be a temporary person until
the former director returns?�
The Provost responded that it�s
not a search for Director, but the position of Associate Director which has not
been filled in the last two years.
VII. STANDING COMMITTEE
REPORTS:
Long Range Planning
Committee - No report.
Educational Policy
Committee - Governali reported that
EPC has met and is working on the summer reconstruction and reconfiguration
proposal.
Student Affairs Committee - ���� No
report. {SEE Student Senators Report}
Faculty Affairs Committee - McCabe reported that the committee has met and she
will be chairing it again this year. She will be giving a report at the next
Senate meeting.
College Research Committee - No report.
General Education
Committee -�� Dean Prus did not give a report but asked a
question that has come up since their first meeting of the year held the week
prior.� He said, �One thing that
continues to come up before the committee is their status as part of Faculty
Senate.� He relayed some history, that it
was first created in the mid 1980s, through a charge by the Faculty Senate. He
wondered why it was not included in the College Handbook, and whether it
is a standing committee of the Senate?
The chair asked Prus if he
was making a motion to make it a standing committee. Prus replied that he just
wanted clarification and to bring it to the Senate�s attention.�
The Chair replied that the
Senate has four Standing Committees currently in place.� He said, after conferring with the
parliamentarian, that in order for it to be standing committee it would require
approval from the Senate.
The Provost responded to the
confusion of whether or not GE is part of the Faculty Senate� by saying when she came she was told the GE
reported to her. She further stated she felt it would be beneficial to go back
through the history of the committee and see if it is a standing committee of
the Senate or one that reports to the Provost.
Chaturvedi said he would
bring it to the Steering Committee unless someone wanted further discussion.
In response to a question
from K. Alwes, who asked how the GE Committee got formed, someone from the
floor replied it was formed by the Faculty Senate to develop GE. The program is
also given the responsibility for any changes that would be made in categories
and also to consider the individual courses that would be included in part of
the GE program.� Alwes asked if it is
more than an ad hoc committee since it needs to be continuing.
The chair responded that he
will bring the issue to the Steering Committee and report back to the Senate at
the next meeting.
The Provost added, �Because I
did charge the GE Programs we have, because we currently we have two GE
programs, where the intent if of making one GE program. So, if this is a
committee of the Faculty Senate then that charge has been coming from the
Faculty Senate rather than the Provost.�
Prus said he concurred with
the Provost.� He further stated, �We need
to determine what the nature of the status of the committee is to try to
resolve these apparent inconsistencies.�
VIII. SUNY SENATOR�S
REPORT:
No report.� Chair Chaturvedi reiterated that the SUNY
University Faculty Senate meeting will take place at Maritime College on 10/21,
22 and 23.� Phillips and Chaturvedi will
be attending so if anyone has any issues or concerns please contact either of
those two individuals.
Alwes asked if the ROTC issue
was a SUNY one or local.� Chaturvedi
replied that it is a local campus issue having nothing to do with the SUNY
Senate.
IX. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Committee on Committees - No report.
X. OLD BUSINESS:
D. Vegas, SGA President,
presented the Student Laundry Resolution and additional copies were passed
around.�
The Chair asked if
Buckenmeyer was moving an amendment.�
Buckenmeyer read the amendment: Be it resolved that the SGA insists that
any proposed increase in fees will be consulted by the Student Senate, where
said increments are implemented, or will be consulted before said increments
are implemented.
The Chair asked for the
reasoning behind this motion. Buckenmeyer replied in regards to certain issues
that may not have to go back to the full Student Government Association which
require extra time commitments. He further stated that the students don�t feel
it�s an issue to bring every increase back to the entire SGA. He said they just
want to be involved in the situation.
D. Vegas said by adding �as
necessary� leaves the door wide open and would weaken it, if anything.
Alwes responded in agreement,
saying, �It leaves the door so open someone maybe have trouble closing it.�
D. Kirschner spoke against
the resolution by stating he also felt the �as necessary clause� would shut the
door.
There was a question from the
Chair about whether the resolve referring to the laundry resolution applied to
that or others.
Vegas responded, �The last
resolve is something we would hope would come to the Student Senate for an
increase. We are not comfortable with this, only some aspects. Some factions of
campus are required to come to campus for support. There is no reason all
faculty on campus who want an increase should have to go to SGA.�
The Chair asked if the last
resolve on the last page did not refer to laundry specifically.
Someone from the floor asked
specifically as to what variations are allowable when students do and don�t
want to be consulted?
The Provost answered, in
response to a question about which fees go before SGA,� Tech fees, health fees,
athletic fees....�
The Chair mentioned
transportation, all mandatory fees, and resident hall increases. He then asked
if this pertained to course fees?
Vegas responded that the
students just want consultation.� �Were
not saying we�re going to cause an uproar, go riot in the streets. We just want
to know about it. We think that we deserve that, you know.�
Alwes felt the word �consulting�
was a problem.
Governali asked if
notification was sufficient.
Vegas replied, �We will
settle for notified.� No one told us with
the laundry. We found out when we came back to campus.�
The Provost said, �I think we
have several categories here.� Where
consultation is necessary that does occur.�
There are other situations where there are external factors that impinge
upon what happens.� In this case,
notification is what would be intended rather than consultation. So if,
perhaps, the item were reworded so that it makes which distinctions, that should
satisfy all of those situations.�
Vice President Mosser said he
wanted to clarify what Dr. Franco pointed out there are mandatory fees and
optional fees. The Chair asked that comments be strictly on the amendment as it
is presented.
Buckenmeyer reread the
motion: Resolve that SGA insists that for any future proposed increases in fees
Student Senate will be consulted as necessary before set increases are
implemented.
The amendment was voted on
and defeated.
Someone from the floor said, �I
think it sets a good example to preach engagement and democracy on campus to
students.�
L. Anderson said, �I worry
that this adds another administrative or bureaucratic layer of scheduling
courses, making it more cumbersome. There are a million things I have to do
when scheduling courses. I am in favor of the resolution but worry about the
level of curriculum.�
Cottone spoke in favor of the
spirit of the motion. He felt the last resolve should change.�
The Chair asked if Cottone
was making an amendment to the resolution to change the wording.
The Parliamentarian told the
Chair that Cottone couldn�t because he spoke to it first.� Kreh explained that when you make a motion to
an amendment, if you make a speech first, you abrogate the opportunity to make
a motion until discussion takes place.�
He said, �You have to make the motion first, then as maker you get to
speak to it. It might seem arbitrary but if the group doesn�t want to discuss
it they won�t second it.�
Governali made a motion that
Student Senate be informed before any increase instead of consulted.
Alwes recognized Walsh who
explained he hadn�t officially won his election yet.�
Walsh wasn�t sure if wording
was going to solve the problem.� He spoke
against the amendment.
The Provost stressed that
there are different levels where notification is mandatory where consultation
does occur. The motion would not, in any way, obviate those, she said, there
would still be the need for consultation that this motion would seek to address.
Vegas called the question
requiring a 2/3 vote. The vote did not carry.
Walsh asked, What does
consulted mean, entails, does it mean bring it to the Senate? What does that
mean?�
Vegas replied that it
stipulated coming to Student Senate and bringing it forth.
An amendment was made by J.
Cottone.
Anderson asked about the word
�informed.�� She said in course related
terms it seemed unnecessary for a course increase of 5 dollars where the
outside vendor raised his prices, to have to do that. She wanted the wording
changed. She asked when she sets course fees for Recreation Programs at
Raquette Lake, would students have to be consulted?
Vegas responded that the
students just want to know about it.
Alwes asked everyone to
reflect on the wording. She asked Vegas what specifically they were thinking
when they wrote the resolution?
Governali talked to the issue
of consultation.� He asked if they would
settle for notification?
Vegas said they just want
notification.
Anderson spoke for the motion
saying she was more in favor now. She felt informed was softer, but doesn�t
want course related fees to burden her as chair.
B. Griffen supported the
amendment because it spoke to the nature of the objections which were made in
the original motion, that the fees would be in consultation.� He felt, in concurrence with J. Rayle, that
the new wording made it more open and maybe would give students a chance to be
more involved with situations as they occurred.
Walsh questioned whether the
motion said anything specifically to class fee increases.
Anderson pointed out the term
is �course related fees.�
Vegas attempted to make an
amendment to the amendment, which she was told was not allowable.
Vegas wanted to add the
words, �with the exception of course related fees.�
The amendment to the motion
was voted on and passed.
A. Young spoke in favor of
the spirit of the motion but was concerned.�
In his words, �Whether we as a Senate can actually pass a resolution
worded of this kind. We are in a position to endorse the resolution but to
simply say this is our resolution....�
Chaturvedi said according to
the parliamentarian the Senate had a right to either support the motion or vote
it down.
Someone asked for
clarification whether or not the wording was changed to �informed� rather
than �consulted,� to which the Chair responded in the affirmative.
Kreh explained that once the
motion was on the floor it no longer belonged to the maker of the motion and
the body could do with it as it wanted.
The motion, as amended, was
voted on and passed.
Vegas expressed her thanks to
the Faculty Senate.
XI. NEW BUSINESS:
Governali spoke to the
Faculty Senate Steering Committee�s decision to bring the matter of how to
proceed with the attempted Faculty Senate Reconstruction. He said, after
discussion with the Steering Committee, it was decided to bring the decision of
how to proceed, whether or not to form an Ad Hoc Committee to bring forth a
recommendation on Reconstruction of the Faculty Senate to the floor and let
them decide.� He gave an overview of the
data that had been collected and distributed handouts containing the feedback.
Alwes asked if one option is
to leave the Senate the way it is.�
Governali responded that last year the Chair re-constituted a roster as
a temporary measure, which only serves as an�
interim arrangement.
Alwes said she felt that the
problem still exists without their being adequate representation from Arts and
Sciences, which is reflected, she said, in the inadequate constitution of the
Faculty Affairs Committee, for example, and still needs to be looked at.
E. McCabe was wondering if an
Ad Hoc Committee were formed, if it could first align the schools, taking into
consideration the new School of Education, and then look at the other problems
regarding representation.
K. Pristash suggested that
the issue would take a lot of soul searching.�
He felt that since the Senate has to decide how to create seats and
proceed, the feelings of the Arts and Science faculty has to be taken into
consideration.� He said, �Any reduction
in their numbers is appropriate. A lot of people think fte�s in their schools
is larger. In Arts and Sciences they feel they should have greater
representation. That�s the crux of the whole conflict. Until we define our
terms, who are we representing, our constituents faculty members in their
offices and classes, students who vote on curriculum matters? They are the ones
we are educating. Until we come to some kind of agreement on whatever, I think
it�s going to be hard to get beyond where we are right now.�
J. Cottone said, as a member
of last year�s ad hoc committee, that another ad hoc committee be formed to
look at the issue.
The Chair asked if Cottone
was making a motion.
Cottone made a motion that an
ad hoc committee be formed to look at the issue of reconstruction and that the
creation of the committee be conducted by Committee on Committees determining
representation.
Governali spoke in support of
the motion.� He said that it is a sensitive
issue that no one seems to want to address.�
�What kind of representation should exist in the Senate, some kind of
model, or each school having the same number of representatives. That�s at the
heart of what we are trying to deal with. It�s a tough issue. We just don�t
want to deal with it.�
The Provost sought
clarification considering what transpired last year, that going back to McCabe�s
point, �Does the faculty need to be restructured or recreated to a distribution
that is fair and equitable to a new school?�
Walsh spoke of two issues,
one of representation of different schools as a result of the new school and
the professional staff issue.� He said, �The
two issues got snarled up together. We should limit the charge of the ad hoc
committee breaking up the two colleges. That would make it easier.�
The Provost said, �I ask the
question, if you are going to form a committee, it needs to be clear on what
its task is.� We could be looking at this
ad infinitum.� What is it that they are
to report back to the body?�
Someone from the floor
answered that the committee make a recommendation on the structure.
Governali asked what the
amendment was exactly.
Cottone replied that he was
proposing that not only does the ad hoc committee look at options but make
recommendations to the Senate.
Alwes wondered that the
committee was being given too much to accomplish. She asked Cottone, as maker
of the proposal, �Were you thinking of different levels of responsibility
for� this committee?�
Cottone explained that the
Steering Committee who will charge the ad hoc committee would define the task
specifically this time.
Chaturvedi further explained
that the Steering Committee would clarify it and bring it back to the body for
further action.
Anderson spoke in favor of
the motion thinking the ad hoc committee would have some data to work from with
work already accomplished.� She said that
last year�s committee started from scratch and now the new committee would have
something to build on.
The amendment was voted on
and carried.
McCabe offered an amendment,
that the committee would initially start restructuring to include the new
school and then later realign the faculty representation to be equitable.
The parliamentarian
reiterated that when the committee is formed the Steering Committee would set
up a charge and guidelines and any implementations would be approved by the
full Senate body.
Kreh explained that he was
trying to move the motion along and not to get concerned with the charge just
to expedite getting the committee formed.�
McCabe added that the particulars would be worked out later accordingly.
Griffen asked if the maker of
the motion thought of any chronology.
McCabe said that when the ad
hoc committee was formed last year other problems arose and other questions of
representation came up. The committee got �bogged down� in trying to come up
with a plan to please everyone. The committee started out with a simple thing
to include the new school but got burdened with other recommendations.
There was a vote and the
amendment was defeated.� The main motion
was voted on and was passed
XII. STUDENT SENATORS: Vegas reported that the Student Senate has been
phenomenal. She explained that they had set a goal of 287 Senators in each
area, which she reported is �huge.�� She
said, �We are proud of that.�� She
announced that different groups on campus are working on voter education along
with NYPERG. She said they have registered about 1200 students, setting a goal
of 1500.� She reported that SGA is doing
something to help out with tragedy in Russia.�
She said a Middle School in Syracuse took up a drive to collect canned
goods but was unable to send it because shipping was too expensive. An
Education student on campus contacted SGA to see if they were willing to
sponsor shipping the items. She also said they are getting something together
to send to the hurricane victims in Florida such as canned goods and
flashlights.� She reported on a
recommendation the Student Senate approved last week and handed out a document
which she announced was not asking for support or vote, but �Just to make sure
everyone on campus sees it, our thoughts regarding the past situation, to get
our statements out there.�� She stated
they were also sent through inter-campus mail to the Miller Building and an
attempt to was made to disburse them all over campus.
Mosser explained that there
was no animus from the ASC alumni Board. He said that two issues occurred, one
was the ASC Alumni Board and the other one an outside vendor who handles
laundry.� A recommendation was made to
the President�s Cabinet that recommended increased laundry fees. He said a
mistake was made in not coming to SGA first. He said, �We are very sorry that
occurred.� His office has conveyed that
to them and assured them, he said, and �We will make every effort that never
happens again.� He said the vendor made the mistake when they programmed the
swipe cards to charge five cents more than was approved by the Cabinet. He
explained a type of refund has been enacted to remedy the situation. �There was
a breakdown in communication and we are very sorry that occurred.�
XIII.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS:
The chair introduced �newly
elected Senators, D. Driscoll from Math/Science and Bill Griffen from EDU.
The meeting was adjourned at
2:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Kissel
Recording Secretary
The following reports are
appended to the Minutes in the order reported and submitted by Senators and
other members.
(1) Student Laundry Statement
submitted by D. Vegas.
(2) Student Laundry
Resolution submitted by D. Vegas
(3) Questionnaire regarding
Faculty Senate Reconstruction submitted by J. Governali
�
http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes/m3.html
�
�