Minutes of the University Senate Meeting
Nov. 3, 2008
The meeting was called to order by Chair Ana Maria Klein at 4:08 PM in S-104 Williams Center.
Refreshments were provided by VP Virginia Horvath.
The draft agenda for the meeting of Nov. 3, 2008, and the draft minutes of the meeting of Oct. 6, 2008, were moved and seconded. There being no discussion on these two documents, each was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Report of the President: Dr. Dennis Hefner
President Hefner reported:
- He had a great day at yesterday’s Golden Key honor society induction;
- In budget news: he is pushing for the system to go for a mid-year tuition increase. Our campus is really going to need it. Everything else the Board has been seeking is now off the table because we all have to focus on increasing tuition at this time. It is his understanding the system will be coming out with such a recommendation for the Nov. 18 special session when the Finance Committee of the Board meets one week from today. So far Fredonia has taken $2.7 million in reductions. His best guess is at least another million and a half will be cut. That is $4.2 million in a very short period of time. We need some tuition to soften that blow.
- He updated the campus on the SUNY Chancellor search: it appears that the search continues but is pretty well stalled right now. There will be no new Chancellor in the near future.
- He raised the topic of administrative reviews for the campus, saying the Senate Executive Committee had brought to his attention the fact that it has been several years since any such reviews have been conducted. He indicated it was his fault that we got behind. These are reviews of each VP and their areas, done by division, one at a time. The review looks at the leadership and the division. A committee is appointed in consultation with the chair of the University Senate, and that slate is then brought forth to the Senate for approval prior to the review beginning. Since the furthest out of date review is for Student Affairs, we will begin with that division in the spring of 2009. In fall 2009, we will review University Advancement. Spring 2010 will see a review of Academic Affairs, and then in fall 2010, we will once again review the Administration Division.
- He informed the body that he had sent a memo to the Senators regarding the proposal for the College of Business. [Later in the meeting, it was determined that many of the Senators had not received this memo.] He has asked Academic Affairs to pull the proposal to create a College of Business off the table. The vote at the last meeting was so lackluster in its support of that idea that going forward with further discussion wasn’t going to accomplish much. Therefore, at the request of the VP for Academic Affairs, he authorized advertising for a Dean of the School of Business, which is to begin immediately. He did this so we could attract very good candidates, and this is the time we can get them to notice our effort.
- Finally, he and Mrs. Hefner have put together a holiday reception for the Senate on Wednesday, Dec. 10, from 4:30 to 6:00 PM. Invitations will be forthcoming.
Questions:
Sen. Amy Cuhel-Schuckers (Academic Affairs Division) asked about the tuition increase proposal: do you have any projection of the impact that would have on students, in terms of financial aid, or pushing some to withdraw from school, etc.? Pres. Hefner replied that in terms of their financial aid packages, these will be revised. If tuition is not raised more than $650 on an annual basis ($325 per semester), then a student will still fall within the TAP cap. This should have minimal impact on our students. As to students being forced to withdraw, it will be my expectation that this won’t happen. In the past we’ve had much more significant increases (last time it was 28%), and the Foundation has come forward with supplemental funds and made them available to our Director of Financial Aid to use for those students needing funding. These were all grants, not loans.
Dr. Roger Byrne asked whether tuition would have to be increased beyond the $625. Pres. Hefner responded that he didn’t know. Just the most recent cut of $96 million for all of SUNY would be the equivalent of almost $800 per student per year. SUNY has been cut at least $210 million so far this year, so we’re looking at a potential fairly sizeable number. He guessed that it wouldn’t be larger than the TAP cap for the mid-year increase. Next Monday he might be able to have more information.
Sen. Nick Dhimitri (Student Association) asked roughly how many students do we have who receive full TAP? Pres. Hefner answered that he didn’t know the exact number. Almost 70% of our students receive at least some TAP funding.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers then asked if you are going to have a Dean for the School of Business, will that dean report to a dean who will report to the VP? Pres. Hefner responded that his memo indicated a dean who would report directly to the VP, and that would occur at the time of the appointment of the new dean.
Report of the VP for Academic Affairs: Dr. Virginia Horvath
Dr. Horvath announced that the video that was on the agenda will not be shown today. It had arrived on time, but it kept jamming when she tried to view it on her computer earlier today. This video is about the Cal State Northridge campus emergency response at the time of the earthquake back in 1994. It is instructive, and will be helpful in our implementation of an emergency response system here.
She also mentioned the work of the Student Evaluation Content Committee. Last year we had a committee looking at the kinds of technological tools available for conducting student course evaluation surveys. We also began a group that is looking at the content of such evaluations from an institution-wide perspective. We want to make sure you all know who is on that committee, and that they will be happy to receive your comments and input. The Chairs received something this week about the content. We are looking at core questions that will be used with all courses, and which can be supplemented with your departmental questions. We really do need institutional data on course evaluation.
The Committee consists of:
Steve Kershnar (Philosophy), Chair
Cindy Bird (Language, Learning and Leadership)
Teodora Cox (Mathematical Sciences)
Dick Reddy (Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work and Criminal Justice)
Ray Stewart (Music)
Joe Straight (Mathematical Sciences)
Iclal Vanwesenbeeck (English)
Please inform your constituents about this and let them know the Committee will welcome their input.
Questions:
Sen. Markus Vink (History) asked if this is going to be mandatory and who will have access to the results? VP Horvath replied that we need to have consistently collected data across the institution. For a campus that says we value teaching, we have nothing that documents across the campus course evaluations for Middle States. We do need that kind of basic information. As for access, that is something that we have to develop as part of our policy. Some would argue for totally open access, but she is less inclined to go in that direction. We want the students’ perception of what they learned or are learning, and not of instructor performance. Aggregated data could be useful to us as an institution in terms of development assistance, or comparison of CCCs in general, etc. We would welcome comments and suggestions. We would also like to hear your input as to whether we ought to move to online for gathering this information. Online can get timely reporting for adjusting our methodologies. It also provides confidentiality and anonymity. I am concerned, however, about how we can assure that students will participate. If anyone has ideas about this, I am eager to hear them. We might have a couple of forums on these topics. Please take this back to your departments and your constituents and discuss it. And send your concerns to the Chair of the Committee and to the VP. If they are about content and policy, please direct them to the Committee.
Sen. Ziya Arnavut (Natural Sciences) asked what are practices on other SUNY campuses? When he was at the Univ. of Nebraska, he had the right to test at the start of a course to determine if the students in the class were ready for the class. Also for accreditation, instructors were supposed to keep exams on file, so they could evaluate us. I’d like to urge a broader review of policy, please. VP Horvath replied that she is hoping the view for this will be broad. We are looking at how students perceive their learning. She would not like to look at any mean scores to indicate how the instructor is performing. Rather, she would prefer to look at what choices were made to help the student to learn. This should not be about personality. She hopes it is a broader approach than “this is how we determine our faculty are good.”
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers asked if there was student on this committee? VP Horvath answered no, but that is not intentional. She then asked Sen. Kershnar about his thoughts on adding a student. Sen. Kershnar indicated that he would rather discuss this with the committee members before commenting.
Report of the Senate Chair: Dr. Ana Maria Klein
Chair Klein informed the body that she had spent some time in the Campus Governance Leaders portion of the SUNY-wide Senate Plenary meeting at Potsdam, and that the leaders who had attended had each received a beautiful original etching from Joe Hildreth, titled “Minerva of Potsdam”. She displayed this gift from the podium throughout the remainder of the meeting.
She then informed us about a workshop on parliamentary procedure that she attended at the plenary that was conducted by a professional parliamentarian. At this point Sen. Robin Hartinger-Saunders (Sociology, Anthropology, etc.) asked who our parliamentarian was. Chair Klein then introduced Dr. H. Joseph Straight to the body as our parliamentarian. She then continued, saying that we adhere to our bylaws, and that she had asked at the workshop about voice voting. The response of the workshop facilitator was it is best to have paper ballots, however voice voting is allowed. He said that abstaining is really not voting… votes are yea or nay only.
Sen. Kerrie Wilkes (Library) asked isn’t abstaining an option? Chair Klein repeated that the facilitator said abstentions are not voting. Sen. Adrienne McCormick (English) then said but sometimes people wish to register that they have not voted, for a variety of reasons. And Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers added it has been customary for our Senate to use the option of abstaining as a means to reflect a certain position which may be neither agreeing with the affirmative or the negative. She then said that she would caution the Chair to not move away from that long-term custom.
Chair Klein continued that the facilitator suggested that the rules are meant to protect the minority, and he suggested that a 2/3 majority vote be used, but that differs significantly from our bylaws, so she urged everyone to look over our bylaws. She then reminded the body that everyone has the opportunity to speak twice on an issue, and should keep their comments to less than 10 minutes. If a person wishes to speak a third time, a 2/3 vote of the body must be obtained before s/he is allowed to speak.
Then Chair Klein yielded the floor to our Governance Officer, Dr. Charles Davis, who presented an appointment to the Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee. He indicated that the Committee, according to its bylaws, must have a part-time faculty member as part of its makeup. If one of the elected members is not such a person, then the Senate Executive Committee will appoint one, with a supporting vote from the Senate. He then offered Dr. Derek Decker from the Computer Science Department as the designated appointee. There was no discussion, so the vote was called. The appointment passed by unanimous voice vote.
At this time Sen. Arnavut rose to ask to say that Dr. Decker was indeed a good choice, because he knew him personally. But for those who don’t know a nominee, he suggested some biographical information be offered. Sen. Davis responded saying that he had asked for some names to be forwarded to him by the Chair of the FPAC, and he called each of them and asked whether they were truly interested in working on the committee, whether their schedules allowed them to participate in the committee’s deliberations, even giving them clear options for not going forward. Both of the suggested candidates wanted to serve, so he then went to the Senate Executive Committee for resolution as to which one would be appointed. Since the bylaws allows, the Executive Committee used its wonderful “decision making coin”, which we tossed, and Dr. Decker was the appointee.
Sen. McKinney rose to say that Sen. Arnavut has a good point. We need to have some biographical information. She then added that is a time to abstain, if you don’t know anything about a nominee and you don’t feel comfortable voting.
Sen. Arnavut added that he wasn’t arguing that the Executive Committee doesn’t have the right to appoint certain positions, but we need to know something about the person for whom we are being asked to vote. Chair Klein then agreed that we will provide a brief description of nominees in the future. Sen. Davis added that we still have many vacancies that need addressing, and we will do what you are recommending.
Then Sen. Davis indicated that the FPAC had brought to the Senate Executive Committee the need for a change in the Senate bylaws relating to the composition of the Committee’s membership. Sen. Davis indicated that the current membership consists of one representative from Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Education, and Professionals and must have a representative who is part-time. He then introduced Sen. Christopher Taverna who chairs the Committee. Sen. Taverna informed the body that what they would like to see is the current list (alphabetized) with the addition of “Library”. Their justification is that librarians need their own representation. Being represented by another professional staff isn’t equitable. There could be the possibility that the Library has no representation whatsoever, and when a librarian fills the professional seat (as now), then the needs of the professionals are not as well represented. Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers asked if librarians are non-teaching professionals or teaching professionals? Sen. Wilkes responded that under the Policies of the Board of Trustees and UUP, librarians are considered to be the same as faculty. They have the same obligation for publication, service, etc. When this Committee holds it forums, there is one corner with the professionals, another corner with the faculty, and the librarians are off by themselves because we have unique issues because we cross both areas. Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers then asked this would not replace the professional seat? Sen. Taverna answered “No. It will just add a seat for the Library.” Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers then said she would prefer them to be listed as non-teaching faculty. Sen. Taverna responded that designation is never included in the bylaws. We would remove them from “professional staff” for this committee.
Sen. Davis then added that the procedure would be to have the proposed change approved by the Senate, and then we’d go for a vote of the faculty as a whole.
Sen. McCormick then asked for clarification: shouldn’t the terminology be “librarian” instead of “Library?” Aren’t there non-librarian professionals on the staff? Sen. Wilkes responded there are non-librarian professionals who work in the Library building, but they are not part of the Library staff. [Note: these are in the Registrar’s Office, the Learning Center, and the Professional Development Center. – Faculty Secretary] Sen. Davis then agreed that the term “librarian” would be more appropriate, and we will use that term.
Sen. Bruce Simon (Senate Vice Chair) then reminded to body to let their constituents know about this. This will be voted on by everyone if it is approved here. That vote will require at least ¼ of the faculty returning their ballots for a quorum, and we will need a 2/3 affirmative vote from those returning their ballots. Parliamentarian Straight added that we will need to bring this back to the next Senate meeting for a vote.
Dr. Roger Byrne asked if Sen. Davis anticipated further changes in the bylaws? Sen. Davis answered yes; probably… there is an awful lot that needs to be updated.
At this point, Sen. Kershnar asked what is the difference between a business school that has a dean and a college? Chair Klein said she’d prefer to have that discussion when this issue comes up later in this meeting. Sen. Kershnar then asked were you planning to schedule a vote on the question of whether there should be a dean in business? Chair Klein said she was planning on having a discussion. Then Sen. Kershnar said that his department wanted to know if the Senate was going to discuss how speakers get treated on campus? Chair Klein responded that could be raised in new business.
Action Items
Academic Affairs Committee: Dr. H. Joseph Straight
1) Change in name from the Department of Computer Science to Department of Computer and Information Sciences.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers asked if this change was intended to better represent the majors in the department? Dr. Straight responded “Yes.”
Sen. Wilkes wanted to be put on record that this change could cause confusion. There are schools of library and information science at the graduate level, and we are beginning to see these at the undergraduate level as well. This name change might be misunderstood by some prospective students. These two disciplines are very different things.
Dr. Khalid Siddiqui (Chair, Computer Science) said that programs in computer sciences and engineering list all the courses under this category. More than 500 schools list their programs under this heading.
Dr. Straight offered it is good that we are having this discussion. Most often when we bring name changes to the body, there is no discussion at all. It is important that these changes come before the Senate.
Sen. Arnavut asked if there was such a library and information science department around here? Sen. Wilkes responded, “No,” saying that she was just pointing out the potential confusion that such terminology may cause. Sen. Arnavut continued: most of the sciences are mixed up. Her concern is a different issue, because we don’t have any undergraduate program in library and information science here. In Western New York, I don’t know if we have any department that has computer and information sciences in its name. Sen. Wilkes answered that her concern was there are “information systems” and
“information science” programs, and these are very different from “computer and information sciences.” She doesn’t want to confuse the students on campus who are planning on going to grad school in library and information science. Sen. Taverna then commented: isn’t it usually listed under computer and information sciences or library and information science? One should be able to tell the difference simply alphabetically. Sen. Paul Murphy (Music) added that it seems to him that CIS has been the traditional name in North America for a generation or so. We ought to modernize. Sen. Wilkes suggested that very often it is computer and information systems. Sen. Vink then offered that it would be very helpful if you could provide some rationale about why you want to change the name of your department. Sen. McKinney commented that on our web site, we have two majors: computer science and computer information systems. Why didn’t you pick the name Computer and Information Systems? Dr. Straight responded that he knows the department thought about this because historically their courses had been coded CIS and then CSIT. It is just the preference of the department. Academic Affairs thought about the concern about the possible confusion, and because we have no program on campus in library and information science, we didn’t feel the need to change it.
There being no further discussion, the vote was called for. The motion passed by voice vote.
2) New major program in Sports Management
Dr. Straight informed the body that the current program in Sports Management is one of the interdisciplinary degree programs. This proposal will make it a stand-alone major in the Department of Sport Management and Exercise Science.
Sen. Ewing offered the information that the discipline is called “Sport” Management, according to its accrediting body, and since the discipline uses the term “Sport” (in the singular), the original proposal was titled “Sport Management” and the Academic Affairs Committee changed that. Dr. Straight responded when he watches ESPN at night, it is “Sports Center,” not “Sport Center.” Sen. Ewing responded that he didn’t think that ESPN was ever going to be giving accreditation. Sen. McKinney moved that the motion be amended to have the title of the degree program be “Sport Management.” The motion was seconded by Sen. McCormick.
Sen. Murphy asked for advice on this. Sen. Davis informed the body that about 20 years ago, this came up in the profession, and they determined to use the singular form. There are still a few programs that use the plural, but the majority use the singular. We would like to use the singular.
There being no further discussion on the motion to amend, the vote was taken. The amendment passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers asked if this included the Exercise Science part of this degree program? Dr. Straight answered that the Exercise Science degree will remain in interdisciplinary studies for now.
Dr. Roger Byrne offered that the assessment plan simply states that the program will undergo a five-year review. The Assessment Committee would like to see a real plan for assessment. We’d like the department to have their learning outcomes and how they are going to assess these learning outcomes. Have the courses listed here that don’t appear in the catalog been approved? Dr. Straight answered, “Yes.” Dr. Byrne continued: are there any resources concerns? Dr. Straight indicated that none were identified when this was proposed. Sen. Davis added that all have been taught since this was approved in 2005, and there are no resource problems that we’ve had. Sen. McCormick asked about the number of majors and the rationale and the timeline of how this major moves out from the umbrella of interdisciplinary studies to a standalone major. Sen. Davis responded when we started in 2005, we were interdisciplinary because that was where incubating programs were put. Right now, we have over 200 majors. We should be a standalone major. We have far exceeded that level of incubation. In the last two years we’ve graduated 60 people, and we more than meet our goals with incoming students and transfers. We’ll probably keep our numbers where they are now because we don’t have to deal with multiple sections. Sen. Linda Hall (School of Business) commented that one of the courses from the Business department that are included in the current interdisciplinary program has a prerequisite that does not appear to be part of your program. Sen. Davis replied that the appropriate changes have been made, and all the prerequisites are now part of the program. Sen. McCormick asked you just moved from the Arts and Humanities to the Natural and Social Sciences, where will you be housed? Sen. Davis responded that was done while we were still an interdisciplinary program, and we are very comfortable where we are and we will remain there.
There being no further discussion, the vote was called for. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Action items from the SUNY-wide University Senate: Dr. Cheryl Drout
The four resolutions on the ANGEL site and the web site were all passed at the recent Plenary. This vote will not influence the SUNY-wide Senate. It will provide support to the actions of the SUNY-wide Senate from the Colleges to the Board of Trustees. The Senate Executive Committee asked me to hold off on these until the December meeting due to the very full agenda for this meeting, but I felt we needed to register our support (if that is what we end up doing) before the Board meeting that is coming up very soon.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers commented that she was rather offended by the SUNY-wide Senate acting alone. It seems backward. Sen. Drout responded that she agreed; it is backward. But the University-wide Senate doesn’t know what it needs to respond to until just before the plenary meetings. For example, the articulation and transfer resolution: we were told the Board would act without our input if we didn’t do it then. She did agree with Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers point. Ideally, we should be consulting with the campuses and taking those sentiments to the larger body.
Sen. Arnavut offered that these are very difficult times, and the SUNY-wide Senate had an urgent matter, so under normal conditions the president of the SUNY-wide Senate wouldn’t have done this.
Sen. Kershnar asked for some information about the Office of Diversity and Education Equity. Sen. Drout said that she’d prefer to take the resolutions in order.
Sen. Jordan (Student Association) asked if we will be offering our own language for each of these? Sen. Drout responded we weren’t asked to come up with our own resolutions, but just to endorse these resolutions.
The first resolution regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the New York State Commission on Higher Education had no discussion and was endorsed by voice vote.
The second resolution concerning support for the mission and leadership of the Office of Diversity and Educational Equity had some discussion:
Sen. Drout explained that this was a fairly new office, and the SUNY-wide Senate was not sure considering the State’s budget crisis, whether it would be funded or not. Sen. Kershnar asked what this office does? Sen. Drout responded that it basically is to broadly support diversity across SUNY: such things as diverse hiring, some grant support for developing courses, etc. There are many ways that this office potentially can be involved with diversity issues. Sen. Kershnar followed up asking if this office is involved in supporting preferential hiring policies? Sen. Drout responded that she did not know.
Sen. Dhimitri asked if this office already exists? Sen. Drout replied, “Yes.” Sen. Dhimitri then asked what was the budget for this office? Sen. Drout said that she’d have to take that question back to the SUNY-wide Senate and ask. Her sense was that there has been a very minimal budget and the feeling was that there will not be enough for it to continue to operate.
Sen. Jordan asked would this money be affecting other programs? Sen. Drout responded that could very well be. She couldn’t assure anyone that it wouldn’t.
Sen. Hartinger-Saunders asked how “diversity” was being defined in the context of this office? Sen. Drout responded that she thought it was being defined very broadly: ethnic, gender, cultural, etc.
Sen. Kershnar asked how could we vote for this if we have no idea what would be appropriate support for its mission? Sen. Drout replied if you feel uncomfortable, then feel free to vote it down.
The time being 5:30 PM, the Chair asked for a motion to extend the meeting for another 20 minutes. Sen. Arnavut moved, and Sen. McKinney seconded. The motion carried by voice vote.
There being no further discussion on the second resolution, the vote was taken. Two voice votes were inconclusive. A show of hands approved the motion to support resolution 2 (22 aye, 11 nay).
The third resolution was to support the three-page separately published resolution “Joint Committee on Transfer and Articulation Resolution (7-30-08)”. Sen. Drout said that the SUNY-wide Senators were told that this one would have a faculty committee created to look at issues that are not agreed to by the campuses. This is the one that Joe Hildreth explained to the SUNY-wide Senate that some other resolution will come from the Board if we don’t act on this.
Sen. McKinney asked about the timeline for implementation. Sen. Drout informed the body that the web site is already up and running (at least in part) without the agreement of the Committee on Faculty Representation.
Sen. Dhimitri spoke about one of his concerns: we seem to be supporting a list of courses at all campuses, but the web site allows only comparisons from the 2-year campuses to the 4-year campuses, and none between or among the 4-year campuses. Sen. Drout answered that his faculty committee emphasized looking at the first two years because there are many more issues between the 4-year campuses. Sen. Dhimitri continued: there are other issues, such as a freshman at Fredonia wanting to transfer to Geneseo for example. Sen. Jonathan Chausovsky (Political Science) asked are you suggesting including 4-year to 4-year information? Sen. Dhimitri responded that he was agreeing with the proposal, but the web site is not there yet.
Sen. Arnavut commented that this committee is created within the committees of the SUNY-wide Senate. They are asking for all campuses to be included.
Sen. Ann Carden (Communication) asked about the first two numbered points in the fourth clause of the resolution. With regard to no. 1, are the 4-year colleges mandated to take any student who applies to transfer? Sen. Drout replied that his was not specifically discussed at the Plenary.
Sen. Arnavut then commented that the chair of the committee indicated that if we don’t do this, the Board will impose some kind of policy.
Sen Carden continued: in point no. 2, where it says students transferring in are guaranteed completion of their baccalaureate degree within four semesters… in our department, we develop majors that can be completed in four years, and if incoming transfers don’t have the equivalent preparations, are we obligated to graduate them at the end of four semesters? Sen. Drout said that there is the idea of “parallel programs” and there should not be this obligation if two programs do not match up well (are not “parallel”).
Sen. Murphy commented that this seems like a huge issue. Could you comment on the spirit of this? Is it to create uniformity among the 64 campuses? Sen. Drout replied I think that is the spirit of what is coming from the Board, and we’re seeing a push from the System, and the faculty want to be part of the judgment in that role. We think that what is coming down the road may be mandated. Sen. Murphy: Is there any language saying that campuses are very unequal? Certain campuses do one thing or area very well. Clearly that creates problems for a transferring student from a not-so-strong program to a strong program. Sen. Drout replied that she is not really sure that idea is represented here.
[Unknown member] asked will we be held to this? Will we have to put this in at the junior level across the board? Sen. Drout responded that she thought that would be a matter of interpretation.
Mrs. Bowser offered that we already have this as current Board policy. Someone with an AA or AS degree from any SUNY school has a right to transfer somewhere in the SUNY Colleges. It doesn’t say the student will have to be accepted by all of the four year schools. There is already an articulation program ongoing. This is not a significant change for Fredonia. There is nothing in there that would mean we’d have to take a particular student into our programs.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers asked does this not change the faculty rights to review the incoming students? Mrs. Bowser responded that has been our practice. The web site is new this summer. We provided them with everything we have regarding our courses [and how they match other campuses – Fac. Sec.] They selected the ones they wanted to cover, and they provided links to our very good equivalency pages, which is good. It was a nice “quick and dirty” means of getting that information.
There being no further discussion, the vote was called for. The motion carried by voice vote.
The fourth resolution concerned the effect of the New York State budget problems on SUNY.
Sen. Kershnar asked if there had been any discussion of where else the State might cut? Sen. Drout responded that yes, there were suggestions that they could take more out of K-12 education, which has had minimal cuts at this point in time. The feeling of the SUNY-wide Senate was that SUNY has already taken a large number of cuts; the hope was that the State would look elsewhere.
There being no further discussion the vote was called for. The motion passed by voice vote.
Search Committee for the Dean of the School of Business
Dean Ewing informed the body that there had been a change in one of the co-chairs of the posted slate. Dr. Linda Hall will not be able to co-chair, so Dr. John Olsavsky, a professor in Accounting will take on that role.
Sen. Hartinger-Saunders asked for clarification: will the current Director’s position not be eliminated once there is a Dean? Sen. Ewing replied that yes, that position will be eliminated. The Dean position will replace the Director’s position.
Sen. Carden asked if we vote to approve this slate, are we voting to approve the creation of the position of Dean? Sen. Kershnar added if the majority votes against this slate, will that be accepted as disapproving having the Dean position? Chair Klein responded that she didn’t think so. She then indicated that she really didn’t know how to answer that.
Sen. Ewing then said that the President has articulated the campus’s path on this.
Sen. Horvath then offered, apparently we want to discuss this, so why don’t we?
Sen. Arnavut commented that the last time we voted he abstained. Two months ago he had indicated the supported the idea of the College of Business. The administration should address this clearly. Under the current situation, when we are losing funding, and UUP is working very hard to save jobs on campuses, where is the $100,000 for this Dean going to come from? There is no “savings” for this position. How are we going to pay for this position? Sen. Horvath responded that we currently have the structure of Director, Department Chairs, and secretaries. There is no new structure here. It is changing the title of the line and the reporting structure. In terms of salary, this is frankly a high salary position, whether as director or as dean. We are hoping the change of title and the reporting structure will help with the accrediting agency [and with attracting good candidates – Fac. Sec.] We don’t have any other structure with department chairs reporting to a director reporting to a dean reporting to a vice president. The salary will be in the same range. There isn’t any new money. It is a leadership position for this School. Sen. Ewing added the Director’s position is open, vacant. Sen. Arnavut asked if you resign tomorrow, is the money he is getting the same or not? Sen. Horvath answered that the person who was the Director before moved into a vacant faculty line. There was no new line created. He was moved into Franklin Krohn’s line.
The time having reached 5:50PM, the Chair asked for a motion to extend the meeting for another ten minutes. There was a motion and a second. The motion carried by a show of hands, 23 to 9.
Sen. Carden commented that her department asked her to state a few things: it is more important to us that the reporting structure is being changed. There will now be more voices to argue over the pie. Another concern was the return on our investment that the School of Business is supplying the College.
Sen. Gary Bice (Student Affairs) asked if someone could summarize the President’s memo.
Sen. Murphy commented that resolutions of the Senate are only advisory to the President, and he can do as he pleases. Clearly only one third of the Senate was in favor of a College of Business, imbedded with a Dean. We never had the chance to vote on the creation of a dean of business in the School of Business.
Sen. Chausovsky asked for a point of clarification. What is different about the new proposal? Does the Dept. of Economics not go under that dean? Sen. Horvath answered that is not correct. In terms of the structure, there will still be two departments, Business Administration and Economics, that will still comprise the School of Business. After the last Senate meeting, there was clearly not support for a College of Business. It didn’t make sense to move on that structure without the support of the Senate. We wanted to move on this to get a good person in the leadership position. She has heard Sen. Carden’s concerns, as well. The procedures we use when looking at allocations would not be affected by the number of people; we are very consensus-based in our approach to hires and problem solving.
Sen. Kershnar commented that he doesn’t see the difference between a College with a dean, or a School with a dean. The President seems to override our wishes. If he wants to override our vote, then he should clearly provide a statement or call for a vote. Sen. Kershnar then moved that we vote to approve a dean for the School of Business. Sen. Taverna seconded.
Sen. Ewing then asked how many had in fact not seen the President’s memo. Many hands were raised. He then said the gist of it is that we will continue to call the unit the School of Business, but will be lead by a dean who reports directly to the Academic Vice President. Many schools use this model. Professionally oriented units are called schools and more broadly academic units are called colleges.
Sen. Murphy asked for a written ballot. Chair Klein said that since there was clear desire on the part of many members of the Senate that we have a written ballot, that we would.
Sen. Dhimitri commented that it seems that a large part of the discussion has been about budget cuts and belt tightening, and he hasn’t heard the difference between the cost of a director and a dean. Sen. Horvath reiterated that either position will be in the same salary range for this field.
Sen. Taverna then commented that at one point the difference in salary between a director and a dean for the proposed College of Business had been stated as $20,000, plus an upgrade for a secretary that amounted to $10,000. Sen. Horvath replied that was what we said. We are now not upgrading a secretary, so that is off. When we looked last time, the salary we have to offer is not competitive, so we have what we have.
Sen. Kearns then said that it is in the President’s purview to make decisions that are right for this campus. Without a dean, this unit will not get accredited. An accredited school of business has significant potential for major fundraising, as well as prestige. This is cutting of our nose to spite our face.
The hour having reached 6:00PM, the Chair called for a motion to extend the meeting for an additional five minutes. There was a motion and a second. The motion carried by voice vote.
Sen. Arnavut indicated that he was for accrediting all units in this school.
There being no further discussion, the vote was taken by written ballot. The motion carried: 23 aye, 11 nay.
Since the hour was so late, the Chair called for a motion to adjourn. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed by voice vote.
[The remaining agenda items will be carried over to the next meeting or an additional meeting of the Senate. – Fac. Sec.]
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05PM
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney, Faculty Secretary