FACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO

No report.

VII. TREASURER�S REPORT:

C. DeGouff was unable to attend but it was reported that the scholarship fund balance is $1,132.07. �Chairman Rayle encouraged everyone to please continue sending in their dues.

�

VIII.� PRESIDENT�S REPORT:

{SEE Vice President�s Report}

IX. VICE PRESIDENT�S REPORT:

Provost Davis-Russell gave the President�s report in his absence while he was away visiting alumni. She said his visit went quite well in California last week and there seems to be good support for the college in that area.� This past week the President, under the direction of Ginny Levine, sent to the system office the version of the Mission Review II document which will become a draft and becomes the basis for evaluation of the campus.� She said this represents a 5 year plan, which is a change from Mission Review I.� They also sent out a response to the request on telling SUNY�s story.� She explained that the President and the Chancellor�s position is that, as a system, we have wonderful stories to tell, but we have not told them.� President Bitterbaum wants to aggressively tell them in order to find funding for the system and he asked us to address some key themes that he had provided: targeted enrollment, full time faculty and support for technology and research. Looking at capital projects and support for ongoing initiatives, the Chancellor will have information to provide to the legislators demonstrating that the support of SUNY has been inconsistent with both the need and direction of the university.

The Provost gave the figures on enrollment: 5,675 undergraduate enrollment, part-time 260, giving us a total undergraduate enrollment of 5,935.� She reported that our graduate enrollment is 314 part-time, 961 full time, for a total 1,275.� Davis-Russell announced that this represents a slight decrease for the last 3 years in part-time graduate enrollment. Her office is hopeful that with the addition of new graduate programs we will get more graduate students to enroll to lead our target within the next 5 years, bringing our graduate enrollment up to 22% of our student population.� She reported that our total college enrollment for the fall is 5,989 full-time, 221 part-time, giving us a total enrollment of 7,210 students. This figure helps us anticipate what we�re doing for the spring, she stated. Furthermore Davis-Russell reported that last spring we reduced the numbers of acceptances and students admitted because our fall enrollment was quite high and we wanted to stay within target enrollment figures.�

She reported that there are a number of open houses planned and Marc Yacavone was at the Joint Chair�s Council yesterday asking academic departments for support.� Davis-Russell reported that Open Houses are important because it has been documented that 50% of students who are enrolled here attended open houses as compared to 20 something percent who do not.� She indicated that this is an important time for prospective students to meet with specific departments in which they are interested and to see first-hand from faculty about their program. She said �We encourage you to encourage your faculty to participate in these events.��

The Provost�s last item of business was an announcement about the upcoming weekend events pertaining to Parent�s Weekend, with a series of activities planned including the President�s Brunch Saturday morning, a number of athletic events on campus as well as athletic teams who will also be hosting a number of events.

W. Shaut reported that it should come as no surprise to anyone that there will be difficulties in our budget in the future due to rising fuel and energy costs.

D. Berger asked what is the mode used for heating on campus?

W. Shaut responded natural gas.

D. Berger mentioned that, in the past, the college has utilized various sources of fuel and energy as cost saving measures.

Shaut replied that there are certain systems which will give us a break or allow us to reduce our costs.� He said certain systems can close down, but in referring to classrooms, there is no other alternative.

Berger asked if there was anything we could do as a campus to help us economize?

Shaut said buildings have to remain comfortable, although there have been some residence hall strategies.� He explained that one problem is that it can be warm in one area and cold in another. He said the physical plant tries to conserve costs, �but we really don�t know what we can do.�

T. Phillips referred to the parking problem at Bowers and asked for an update on the timeline

when parking spaces might become available again.

Shaut responded that sufficient spaces should be available.

J. Governali mentioned that one of the things which was helpful was the university police who were stationed in the entryway of the campus for the first few weeks of school, but who are no longer there.� He emphasized that there is still a need to continue this practice. Chairman Rayle agreed that the university police do a great job, and if re-utilized, this might open up a few more needed spaces.

L. Anderson asked if the MR II document is available somewhere, perhaps on a website?

The Provost responded that although Mission Review is on a website, Mission Review II is not because it is not yet in draft form.

X. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Long Range Planning Committee - No report.

Educational Policy Committee - {SEE Old Business}

Student Affairs Committee - No report.

Faculty Affairs Committee � No report.

College Research Committee - No report.

General Education Committee � No report.

XI. SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT: - No report.

XII. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Committee on Committees - The Committee on Committees recommended the nominations for the following committee vacancies which were announced and approved by the Senate floor: College Research Committee, Fine Arts & Humanities, Barbara Wisch; Committee on Teaching Effectiveness, Math/Science, Carol Bell; Long Range Planning, Math/Science, Patricia Conklin; General Education Committee, at large [appointed to fill unexpired term (05-06) of Susan Rayl], Jerry Casciani; College Curriculum Review, Professional Studies, Eileen Gravani; Educational Policy Committee, Library [ appointed to fill unexpired term (05-06) of Karen Coombs],Marc Wildman; Educational Policy Committee, Education, Meg Richardson; Committee on Teaching Awards, Arts & Sciences [appointed, sabbatical replacement Spring �06 for Yolanda Kime], Peter Ducey.

The Chair encouraged those who would like to nominate someone or themselves to contact Barbara Kissel after the meeting.

Nominations were taken from the floor for two committee vacancies: Edward Moore, Faculty Affairs Committee; Judith Oullette, College Curriculum Committee for Social and Behavioral Sciences, and approved.

D. Berger recommended that this information be posted on the Faculty Senate website and the chair concurred that this was a good idea and the Steering Committee would take the issue into consideration.

XIII. OLD BUSINESS:

EPC Committee Chair John Cottone opened the discussion by explaining the two reports that were disseminated and being taken into consideration: 1) Proposed Structure and operation of the GE Committee as part of the Faculty Senate; 2) To revise guidelines for submission of Proposals from the Educational Policy Committee.�

Berger asked what the difference was between the item listed under Old Business on agenda and New Business and Cottone said they are the same (GE as a standing committee of the Senate)

L. Anderson asked a question about existing structure and Barclay explained that right now his committee is operating under a 1988 guidebook and that the GE committee has never been recognized in the handbook. He said this is an attempt at updating what his committee has been doing during that time and that at a later date they would change the constituency. Barclay said his committee did look at a list of memberships in both EPC and GE and updated that list.

M. King asked when Barclay says his committee �updated the list� did they actually change the old system in some way or another?

Barclay responded that key changes were made. He explained that previously Math/Science and Social Behavioral Sciences, as well as Fine Arts and Humanities, stayed the same.�� He also said that the 2 seats for Education and Professional Studies were re-dedicated, one for Education and the other for Professional Studies. The one library seat remained unchanged.� The previous 3 at large seats were open to any faculty, as well as the seats for professional staff were changed to one seat. The two at large seats were opened to just academic faculty to insure that a majority of academic faculty remained on the committee. The two student seats were changed to one, he explained, and that although they would love to have students on the committee it is difficult to find students who can participate.� The Provost had previously been on the committee, but they previously added the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment and Dean of Arts and Sciences.

D. Berger asked what were the relationship differences between EPC and GE?

J. Governali responded that �it depends on who you talk to,� and that the attempt was to lump them together for a reason. When the EPC and GE jointly changed their operating procedures, including the guidelines with submission of proposals from EPC, he said if you refer to the second page of that document, the relationship between EPC and GE is clarified.� He said any decision can be referred to the GE committee, but the EPC makes policy recommendations from faculty.

D. Berger asked if the GE committee is a sub-committee of EPC?

Governali said the GE Committee has functioned as a standing committee but was never brought to the Faculty Senate and officially recognized as such. He said that he had researched the files, including its history, and it never was officially sanctioned by the Senate although it operated as such.

Berger asked if EPC referred to curricular matters and the GE Committee general education matters?

Governali said EPC covers educational policy of the college, whereas GE relates to all matters pertaining to curriculum.

D. Barclay indicated both committees have separate roles but an area of shared responsibility.� He answered further that if a GE issue comes to his committee for a recommendation, if it constitutes a policy change then it goes to the EPC committee to review program function

�J. Governali referred to it �as a model of collaboration.�

M. King asked if there was any thought into simply folding one committee into another?

J. Governali responded that they are two different entities.

L. Anderson explained that the workload would be too much for one committee.

D. Berger referred to an Introductory Psychology course which his departments wants to make a GE course, and Berger asked if they would send their proposal to the GE committee to accomplish this?� He also asked in addition if they proposed another course which not part of GE, would they also send that to GE?

Governali answered that all curriculum matters that relate to GE go to the GE committee.

The Provost said she concurred with what Anderson said that the GE committee not only deals with a total of GE courses, but also would double or even triple the work that the EPC committee would have to do if such a change took place.

Clarke did not understand the relationship between the GE Committee and EPC. He asked what recommendations go to the EPC committee?

J. Hendrick responded, in terms of distinctions, that the EPC Committee is outlined in the other proposal from EPC regarding procedures, and she said they issue such procedures for dissemination of communication, in other words, if its a new policy, new committee or regarding an all-college requirement for student, it would go to EPC to obtain feedback.� EPC handles policy, while GE takes care of curriculum matters.

Berger asked what the advantage is of having GE as standing committee?

Kreh replied that the committee is already functioning as a standing committee and has been for the last 20 years. He said they have been given a specific charge in an attempt to bring the handbook, in the way the institution runs, into agreement with the reality of how it functions.� Furthermore, Kreh said that the secretary would make the needed editorial changes in the handbook incorporating all of the information that would be separate from substantive discussion. He said, essentially, it constitutes how we make the handbook agree with what we decide. He asked anyone with concerns to talk to him after the meeting.

D. Barclay said the key advantage would be to make the GE Committee more transparent since they have been working from a 1988 document and that it would be nice to have people see �who we are and what we do.�

The consultative search committee proposal was passed around consisting of two documents, the paper as written by J. Barry and an executive summary by Rayle for informational purposes which will be discussed and voted on at the next meeting on October 11.

XIV. NEW BUSINESS:

The two EPC Committee proposals were introduced under Old Business although qualified as New Business since the previous week there was no quorum when they were to be introduced.

XV.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS:

D. Berger reported that Arts and Sciences is running elections but asked for clarification about some confusion as to the terms for Senators from Arts and Humanities.� He said he had gotten a message from the restructuring committee where the process was defined.� He said that right now there are four candidates for at large seats and the ballots have gone out.� Hopefully, he explained those Senators would be serving on the Senate. Although they were invited only one, Paulo Quaglio from ICC, did attend the meeting and was heartily welcomed.

T. Phillips commented on the necessity of having the elections in the spring so that new senators can be ready to serve when the senate starts its new business in the fall. Chair Rayle expressed that this is as a good idea and the Steering Committee would take it up.

D. Berger mentioned an initiative that was supposed to have taken place two years ago where the elections were supposed to be conducted online. Berger also asked D. Barclay for clarification as to the staggering on terms for new slots so that they would not all be vacant at the same time.

Rayle responded by saying there is some discretion in defining the lengths of terms and if people want to run for one year that is permissible. He felt that under the general guidelines, since there isn�t a lot of participation, it is important to set up feasible terms to encourage participation, not discourage it.

Berger asked if the restructuring proposal that was passed by the Senate last year was written anywhere and the chair responded that it is on the Faculty Senate website.

�� D. Barclay responded that the ad hoc committee came up with the recommendation which was sent to the Senate for approval, but his committee never actually set it up as to how that transition was going to transpire. �He said that regarding the current elections he thought it would be preferable if they were for one year for Fine Arts and Humanities so that all Senators will serve one year, with the same rotation as the other two Area Senators, with four at large who will hopefully soon be joining the Senate with two year terms.�

D. Kreh explained that ideally the theory is that the terms don�t end at the same time, but he said in reality considering sabbaticals, unfilled terms that are filled by someone else, resignations and promotions from academic to professional, the theory falls apart.� He said the attempt was to fill slots.� Kreh explained further that some of them were to fill vacancies from somebody who has left, but all the rest of them are open. He stressed that it really doesn�t matter whether they are all for two years or one, �but there is not attempt here to manipulate anything, but just trying to fill slots with what we have.�

D. Berger told the parliamentarian he appreciated what he was trying to do.

T. Phillips said he wasn�t trying to be critical, he just felt it would be more productive to fill the slots earlier in the year.

��

XVI. STUDENT SENATOR REPORTS:

M. K. Boland said that SGA is having a voter registration blitz with NYPERG and Civic Engagement�s involvement. The information session will be on Tuesday, October 4 from 7:30 in the Fireplace Lounge.� Actual voter registration will be on Wednesday, October 5 and they will also be going from dorm to dorm.� SGA is also selling raffle tickets to raise money for Hurricane Katrina casualties, and she announced that several groups have raised $100 for the effort.� Several clubs are looking for faculty advisors, Boland announced, and she listed the clubs: AIDS Awareness, Basic, Chemistry, Cinema, Circle K, College Singers, Society of Professional Journalism and New Media.

J. Rayle asked Boland for a list to be sent to him after the meeting.

An unknown individual asked if SGA began appointments of students to the standing committees?

Boland said Amy Dahlman is going to provide a description of committees to students who are available.� She explained that a problem is students don�t know what time the committees meet and some of them already have a class and are unable to participate.

R. Rayle said he would try to coordinate something and would get back to the students.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 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) Standing Rules for the Faculty Senate

(2) Two EPC Proposals: 1) Proposed Structure and operation of the GE Committee as part of the Faculty Senate; 2) To revise guidelines for submission of Proposals from the Educational Policy Committee.�

(3) Search Committee Proposal by Joanne Barry; Executive Summary by Joseph Rayle.

�

http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes/min2.html

�