Minutes of the University Senate Meeting
Oct. 6, 2008
The meeting was called to order by Chair Ana Maria Klein at 4:06 PM in the Horizons Room - East, Williams Center.
Chair Klein went over some housekeeping details, and informed the body that the next two meetings will be in room S-104 in the Williams Center. In December, we will vote on our preferred location. She also reminded the standing committees that any reports or other materials need to be received no later than NOON on the Monday one week prior to the Senate meeting to give us time to get them properly posted on the two sites.
The Chair then called for a motion to approve the draft agenda for this meeting and the draft minutes of the Sept. 8, 2008, meeting. Sen. Kerrie Wilkes (Library) moved and Sen. Lisa Eikenburg (University Advancement) seconded. Two corrections came from the floor:
Sen. David Ewing (Ex Officio, Dean of Natural and Social Sciences) asked that his remarks be corrected. He never said the travel budget was $313,000.00. He did indicate that his College’s travel budget had been $15,000.00.
“Sen. Arnavut then spoke to the issue of the proposed College of Business. He indicated he was for it, but in his area of Computer Science, CIS was wondering if there is any study or some sort of push by the administration for accreditation of our CIS program. Pres. Hefner indicated that he would be very supportive of computer science going for accreditation. He remarked that the San Bernardino campus in the California system had benefited greatly from having its computer science program accredited when he was there.”
He offered the following language as correction:
“Sen. Arnavut then spoke to the issue of the proposed College of Business. He indicated he was for it, but in his are of Computer Science, he was wondering if there is any study or consideration by the administration for accreditation of CS program, given that CS was in the list for accreditation about 4 years ago. Pres. Hefner indicated that he would be very supportive of computer science going for accreditation. He remarked that the San Bernardino campus in the California system had benefited greatly from having its computer science program accredited when he was there.”
There being no further discussion, the motion to approve the agenda and the draft minutes as amended passed by unanimous voice vote.
Report of the President: Dr. Dennis Hefner
Pres. Hefner welcomed the Senate to the Horizon Room, saying the facility was designed to support banquets and other events requiring food, etc. He indicated that the wall opens, and there is room for an additional 40 chairs at tables. The Faculty/Staff dining area is on that opposite side during the week.
Two quick things: First congratulations to a large segment of the campus for a successful NCATE visit. Pres. Hefner wanted to make sure the minutes reflect his thanking all the people who were part of that. Hopefully, we won’t have another full visit for the next seven years.
Second, about what is happening in Albany: The Governor has identified a date later in November when the legislature will come back into session. Gov. Paterson would like to have an additional $2 Billion cut out of the State budget. Everything is on the table. We’ve already taken a 14% hit in our State funding. We are now down to the bone. This will be critical for us, and Pres. Hefner indicated he is not sure how all this is going to play out. He already has put calls out to the legislators to begin discussing things with them. The Governor has said that it is his expectation to release the “Administrative Budget” sometime in December. That normally comes out in January. So we have this special session and an earlier timeline in terms of getting what SUNY wants in the Administrative Budget in place. There is lots of mad scrambling going on at the moment. Our objective is to keep this campus as intact as we can.
Vice President Horvath will be meeting later this week with her fellow chief academic officers in Syracuse.
If you happen to be talking to any of your legislators, please talk to them about de-politicizing tuition and allowing more flexibility for SUNY. Students don’t want their tuition going up in big jumps, but they are okay with jumps that are small. Our students have been on board for quite some time with this idea, especially if increases go back into their education. Pres. Hefner then asked for applause for those students who contribute to the State-wide student association and committees.
On the search for a new Chancellor for SUNY, Pres. Hefner had nothing new to report.
Questions:
Sen. Arnavut informed the body that UUP and the Board of Trustees are receiving reports about the SUNY system. He offered his thanks to Pres. Hefner for what he has done and is doing, especially with regard to protecting SUNY in general.
Sen. Nicholas Dhimitri (Student Assoc. President) asked will the special session be in November or later? Pres. Hefner responded that a later session could be a possibility, but his guess is that if the Governor includes SUNY among the parts of the State government that he will be cutting, and there is no information on that yet, then the Board of Trustees will come forward with a proposal to help take care of what is being proposed as a cut. That would happen probably at the special session. Everyone is waiting to see the details from the Governor. Specificity usually comes in a budget bulletin, but there has been on budget bulletin released yet. The legislature is running away from this before the election.
Report of the Vice President for Academic Affairs: Dr. Virginia Horvath
Dr. Horvath reported:
- Last week a number of people on campus were trained in “Critical Incident Management”. At some point, faculty will be involved at some level for training for emergency responses. Last year with the bomb scare, there had been lots of discussion about how things went, or didn’t. We’ve contracted with a company (Bomac) that works to make sure organizations are NIMS (National Incident Management System) compliant. All have to be NIMS compliant by 2009. This essentially means we have to learn to use common terminology when reporting an incident. I included a chart showing the structure of critical incident management, and the areas that were covered in our training. [That chart is included with materials accompanying the agenda for this meeting on the ANGEL site and on the Fredonia Senate web site – Secretary.] Everything in critical incident management is very different from the way we work in academic governance. There is no time to meet as committees and reach unanimity. So we work things out in advance as best we can, and work to have clear communication. Expect to hear more as the year progresses!
- Tenure track searches and other searches in Academic Affairs have been significantly curtailed, but there are some that have been vacant for more than a year (such as failed searches) or that have been deemed as having catastrophic consequences if the position is not filled (such as an area having no faculty to teach courses). When a chair has brought a position forward, the cabinet must certify that the requirements of Pres. Hefner’s memo have been met, and only then can a search be undertaken. Please contact my office or that of your dean if you need information.
- The Learning Assistants Guidelines: the Academic Affairs Committee is looking at these. I expect by the end of this semester we will hear from them concerning these.
There were no questions.
Report on NCATE visit: Dr. Christine Givner
There was not much more to report than what Dr. Hefner has already said. Dr. Jamar Pickreign accompanied Dr. Givner. He has memorized everything about NCATE! He is our guru. We were visited by six faculty from other campuses plus an observer from the State. This team was here for four days. They conducted two days of interviews, reviewed hundreds of documents (virtual and paper), visited several of our school sites, and talked with and observed our students (undergraduate and graduate.) Our initial programs (across the unit) met all six of the unit standards. We actually received special commendation in terms of two of the standards: the quality of our field work and partnerships with schools, and the quality of our faculty scholarship. At the advanced level, our graduate programs, we have a couple of issues relating to our system of assessment and diversity competence of our graduates. We will get the complete report in a couple of weeks, and then we have to wait for the full vote from NCATE later this year.
There were no questions.
Report of the Senate Chair: Dr. Ana Maria Klein
Chair Klein introduced Gloria Hobbs, the Senate Executive Committee’s assistant. Thank you, Assistant VP Melinda Karnes, for making Gloria available to us.
Chair Klein then explained that we will have a vote on a slate of candidates to fill vacancies on the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. Two or three years ago, this committee was changed to having appointed membership instead of elected membership to ensure that the people on the committee were committed to the work. Dr. Klein asked Dr. Charles Davis, Governance Officer, to present the slate as a motion of the Senate Executive Committee.
Dr. Davis offered the slate: Dr. Joy Bilharz (Social Sciences: Sociology, Anthropology, etc.), Dr. Paula Holcomb (Arts: Music), Dr. Carmen Rivera (Humanities: Modern Languages), Dr. Kathleen Gradel (Education), and Mrs. Jennifer Costa (Professionals).
There was no discussion, and the slate was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Action Items
College of Business
Chair Klein asked for a motion to approve the creation of the College of Business. Sen. Dani McKinney (At Large, Social Sciences) moved the motion and Sen. Linda Hall (Business) seconded. In discussion, the question was asked what we are voting for. Chair Klein informed the body that we have had this raised at the two previous Senate meetings, and we should be able to vote today. There was no further discussion. The motion failed on a show of hands: 11 Yes, 12 No, and 12 abstentions.
Academic Affairs: Online Education Policy
Dr. H. Joseph Straight informed the body that based on the discussion of the policy at the September meeting; the Academic Affairs Committee had changed one portion: the first sentence under “Course Frequency.” The September version read:
“Until the university adopts an explicit policy to the contrary, students have the right to expect that any courses they are required to take be offered in a traditional or web-enhanced format according to the frequency codes published in the university catalog.”
The current version now reads:
“Until the university adopts an explicit policy to the contrary, undergraduates have the right to expect that any courses they are required to take be offered in a traditional or web-enhanced format according to the frequency codes published in the university catalog.”
The change from students to undergraduates reflected the need to accommodate the statements regarding the graduate programs that were brought to the Committee’s attention. Dr. Straight pointed out that the alternative language on the second page was still there if anyone wished to move that language instead. The motion of the Committee is the policy as currently drafted without the alternative language.
Discussion:
Sen. Nan Bowser (Registrar) asked whether the Student Association had been consulted about the issue. Sen. Dhimitri responded that at two consecutive meetings following the last University Senate meeting, which included last year’s reps and this year’s reps, the SA decided unanimously that online classes should not be used to replace the course offering in the course bulletin. B frequency courses should have language that expresses that at least once a year the course will be in a traditional classroom. Sen. Bowser followed up asking if that was for undergraduates only. Sen. Dhimitri answered yes.
Sen. McKinney then asked: under part 3 it says “at the time of registration.” Do we have a way to tell students that? If students have a right to know, we have to have a way to disseminate the information before they come to class. Dr. Straight replied that at the time the Committee wrote this, we were moving to a system where there would be information filed about the instruction method to be used for the course. He asked Sen. Bowser if we are there yet? Sen. Bowser responded that in a trial, we are using the mode of instruction. The instructor will be able to choose internet or not, so if the students limit their search using internet, they would get a list of all the courses being offered using the internet. Sen. Dhimitri then said using that you couldn’t tell if a course was heavily internet based or just web enhanced. Sen. Bowser said she was not sure who DOES know that. Sen. Dhimitri followed up saying at the time of registration we may not be sure who is teaching the course, and I suspect the decision is up to the instructor. Sen. Bowser than said she doesn’t know what we would do about blended courses. It could take a herculean effort to get that information from the faculty or the chairs. This is talking about exclusively web courses, right? Sen. McKinney interjected it says here “whether a course will be traditional, web-enhanced, hybrid/blended, or 100% online.” Sen. Bowser indicated we could do that, but we’d have to rely on the chairs to get that information. If the faculty member who will teach the course changes, and then changes the mode of instruction, we will have to drop everything about the course (including students who have already registered for it) and create a new section with the different mode of instruction indicated, and have the students re-enroll. Sen. McKinney then added that if we don’t have the ability to give students the information concerning hybrid courses, then we are going to have students complain that we didn’t inform them correctly.
At this point Sen. Doug Jordan (Student) asked about the language in the paragraph under “Course Frequency” that begins “In exceptional cases…” Dr. Straight responded that it could happen that a department for some reason had an emergency of some sort, and that the only way to offer the course would be online format.
Dr. Straight then asked if anyone wanted to make Dani’s point into an amendment?
Sen. Kerrie Wilkes (Library) asked wasn’t there a document that came before the Senate in which we defined the differences between a web enhanced course? Perhaps defining this would help. Dr. Straight said the Committee had attempted to define it, but you can never define it 100%. This is subjective on the part of the faculty member. This is essentially self-reporting. There could be differences of opinion. A traditional course that uses ANGEL for a few things could be traditional to the faculty member but web enhanced to the student.
Sen. McKinney added that doesn’t solve the problem. The way the language is written now, it should be web enhanced, or 100% internet, or traditional. We could add language saying that this is something we’d like to implement when feasible. Sen. Bowser then said, don’t get me wrong… we could do this. It will just require definitions that need to be determined and understood.
Sen. Taverna moved that information about courses provided to students include whether the mode of instruction is traditional or online. Sen. McKinney seconded the motion.
Sen. Adrienne McCormick (English) commented that is one solution. The other is to have W (for Web enhanced), O (for Online), and T (for traditional), which is not beyond the ability of the chairs to gather. We’d need definitional parameters though.
Dr. Roger Byrne offered that if a course is to be taught online, and if the instructor of that course is no longer employed here for whatever reason, that puts the instructor or the department in a bind to find the [language] to teach the course on an online basis. Isn’t that backing us into a corner? Dr. Straight responded that the Committee had thought about that and the [language] if it goes into the course offerings bulletin indicating whatever mode of instruction. We would then cancel the section of the course if it wasn’t to be taught in the original mode, and create a new section with whatever mode for the new instructor.
Sen. Jonathan Chausovsky (Political Science) commented that if we accept this as proposed, would there be anything preventing us from offering a hybrid anyway? Could we include that in the language though we don’t promise it? Dr. Straight answered that traditional was in quotes, and meant anything except what was 100% online. VP Horvath then asked would that broad definition allow a course to meet one day and then have ten weeks of online instruction, and then meet in the classroom again in week 12? We would need a clear definition of what we mean by hybrid.
Sen. Dhimitri indicated that he would not necessarily have a problem with the original wording if it is possible to do that. Students do have the right to know whether a course will be taught traditionally, or web-enhanced, or 100% online.
Sen. Bowser then said that we can do that, with some work from the department chairs. Is that work the chairs are willing to do? If yes, then the students have a right to know and the original motion is fine, and we have to make sure that we meet that standard.
Sen. Taverna then said that he wasn’t trying to eradicate hybrid or web-enhanced. A professor who puts a couple of things on ANGEL during basically a traditional course is teaching a traditional course. He agreed that a course that met once and then for ten weeks online would not be a traditional course or a hybrid.
Pres. Hefner commented that with this amendment, it is pretty easy to come up with three types of classes: traditional, online, and hybrids. He was not sure what web-enhanced was… is it any course that uses anything in ANGEL? That doesn’t need to be in there. The other three are more critical. Can we consider ridding the terminology web-enhanced and keep the other three?
Sen. Taverna accepted that as a friendly amendment. The motion now reads: information about courses provided to students include whether the mode of instruction is traditional, hybrid, or 100% online.
Sen. Chausovsky commented that he thought what the amendment is trying to do is define the three: traditional is meeting in a classroom; online is not meeting in a classroom, and a hybrid is sometimes in a classroom and sometimes not but online. We assume students can get stuff we post on ANGEL or elsewhere even in a traditional course. That would at least make it clear to the students.
With no further discussion ensuing, the vote on the amendment was taken. The amendment passed by voice vote.
Back to the main motion:
Sen. Bowser asked what the implementation timeline would look like. Obviously we can’t do this for spring 2009. We are within a few hours of finishing the spring course offerings bulletin. When would this reasonably be put into effect? Dr. Straight responded fall 2009.
Sen. Wilkes commented on the three definitions: if those could be somewhere where they are available to the students, chairs and faculty, that would be good. It needs to be somewhere accessible. Dr. Straight indicated that we would do that.
Sen. Dhimitri asked for clarification: suppose it is fall 2009, does that mean in the fall semester students can expect to see these three categories when they go on the web to register? Sen. Bowser responded that is the aspiration.
Sen. Givner offered an idea to consider as we try to operationalize this: we could very easily hyperlink in the hybrid courses a brief pop-up with an explanation from the faculty member as to how it would be a hybrid. Sen. Bowser responded that we can’t do that by fall 2009. We can’t link to a syllabus. Sen. Givner answered, no, just a note for the individual course. Sen. Bowser indicated we can’t go there yet.
There being no further discussion of the motion, the vote was called. The motion as amended passed by unanimous voice vote.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Academic Affairs Committee: Discussion Item: Dr. H. Joseph Straight
Dr. Straight informed the body that the Committee has before it a proposal to make the current interdisciplinary studies majors in Sport Management, and in Exercise Science, to normal majors under the Dept. of Sport Management and Exercise Science. The Senate did approve this as an interdisciplinary major. Now we are asking for them to be stand-alone majors, which requires another Senate vote. We will be looking at resource implications, etc., and expect to bring this for a vote in the next Senate meeting.
Sen. Taverna asked at what resources implications the Committee is looking? Dr. Straight responded that as a stand-alone major, each program will probably have more visibility, and thus attract more students to the program. We therefore might need more resources in terms of faculty or other things to support it.
At this point, Registrar Nan Bowser was asked if she would like to have the discussion about changing the drop-add period. She answered that she didn’t care whether it was brought up now, but she could do so. Dr. Straight explained that at last month’s meeting, under New Business, in a fairly rushed manner, we had a brief discussion of an idea to increase the number of drop-add days, in effect allowing students the chance to drop or get into courses without a signature from the faculty through the end of the first week of classes. Registrar Bowser then added that at the last meeting, she was just trying to get a sense of the Senate about leaving drop-add open for the first full week of the semester. After that, the Senate Exec. Committee thought we ought to consider this idea more seriously and take a vote. The Academic Affairs Committee will look at it as a proposal and will bring it to the Senate with a more formal recommendation.
Please talk to your colleagues about this idea.
Questions? Dr. Straight informed the body that past practice has been that after the first two days of drop-add the adding of a course has been at the discretion of the faculty teaching the course. The proposal would allow anyone to get in a course without faculty involvement as late as midnight of the first Friday of the semester.
Sen. Phil Hastings (Visual Arts and New Media) spoke to the question: Some faculty have a first-day policy. I personally like having a first-day policy because I cover a lot of stuff on that first day. Dr. Straight responded that this was a reason that the Committee wanted to look at this more formally. Both sides of this issue came up in our Committee. As we discussed this, the example of Theatre Arts came up… from the first day they do things that students need to know. We’d like to see what we can do. Just because you can add late doesn’t mean you should add late. Another problem that I can see is some faculty take attendance and do assessments in the first week. Some students might just not be getting their act together so they sign up late, and then there are others who show up late for real legitimate reasons and are having a difficult time getting their schedule, and if they have two absences and a missed quiz, that will really be upsetting to them.
At this point, Chair Klein stepped down as Chair and handed the meeting over to Vice-Chair Bruce Simon, in order to speak on the topic. Senator Klein spoke regarding the College of Education’s Office of Field Experience that works very hard placing students for their professional experiences. This is a nightmare to accomplish, and would not work well if students can just add it. A second point: I am a “fourth grade teacher” forever. Our lives revolve around that first day of class. We spend the whole year planning for that next first day. So if we allow our students to drop and add whenever they wish in that first week, I don’t think that is so good.
Chair Klein then resumed her position as Chair.
Registrar Bowser then said that she wanted to offer one other possibility. If this is something we want as an institution, we can offer it for one semester and then assess it. We’d [the Registrar’s Office – Fac. Sec.] be willing to give it a trial.
Chair Klein then said to the body that it is important that you as representatives talk with others on campus and in your departments to gauge the sentiment for or against this idea.
Questions for Dr. Straight:
Sen. Cheryl Drout (SUNY-wide University Senate Senator) asked if Dr. Straight could give us a sense of the status of the Learning Assistants policy? Dr. Straight responded that it is still in the study phase. We met with some of the task force members, we are gathering information. We are hoping to have a recommendation by the end of this semester.
Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee: Mr. Christopher Taverna
Mr. Taverna informed the body that the Committee is looking forward to an eventful year. We have decided to break up the forum with the fall having the forum for faculty concerns and the spring having the forum for professional concerns. The annual survey will come out in the spring, as well. Please join us on Nov. 12 in this room (the Horizon Room).
Also, based on comments and discussion last year, there is potential confusion between this Committee and UUP’s responsibilities. We are inviting the UUP leadership to attend to address concerns that are properly in their purview.
All should know that the reports on the forums are given to the administration confidentially and anonymously. There are no names associated with any comments.
Questions:
Sen. Hasting asked if there are other examples? Sen. Taverna replied with an overview of last spring’s forum: we had some workload issues, compensation issues, technology, social events, and calendar issues.
Dr. Straight commented that once we come to some more specific personnel policies recommendations from last year’s task force, that Faculty & Professional Affairs Committee look those over. Sen. Taverna added that the Committee certainly would like to be involved in that process.
Report of the SUNY-wide University Senate Senator: Dr. Cheryl Drout
The SUNY Fall Plenary is coming up. I do need to let you all know that this is my third year as SUNY-wide senator, and we need to begin thinking about who might want to come forward for the next three-year term. The next term will begin in fall 2009, and end in spring 2012. There is a fall planning meeting that is a one-time obligation for new members, and then there are three plenary meetings. Fredonia’s senator represents Fredonia’s views and reports back to the campus on issues that come before the University-wide Senate. It is a nice opportunity to meet other SUNY faculty, to learn about what is new, and to work with the SUNY-wide committees. Also, travel is covered apart from your own departmental travel expenses. There is no stipend or release time. The local University-wide senator serves as a member of the Fredonia University Senate Executive Committee, as well, which entails about two meetings per month usually. She encouraged us all to think about the position and possible nominees. The nomination and voting won’t occur until the spring semester.
Report of the Middle States Accreditation Steering Committee: Dr. Roger Byrne and Mrs. Kerrie Wilkes
The design of our self study has been officially approved by Middle States, and we have 8-plus working groups beginning their research phase. A broad request for supporting documentation has gone out across campus. Things are moving very well. We have added one undergraduate student to each of the working groups, and we are still working on populating the working groups with graduate students.
There being no “New Business” the Chair called for a motion to adjourn.
A motion to adjourn was made and seconded [names were not captured, apologies – Fac. Sec.]. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney
Faculty Secretary