Minutes of the University Senate Meeting
Dec. 1, 2008
The meeting was called to order by Chair Ana Maria Klein at 4:65 PM in S-104 Williams Center.
Parliamentarian Joseph Straight informed the body that the customs of our Senate has as a rule not voted on a proposal when it is first introduced (commonly thought of as a first reading). In the instance of today’s proposal for a dual certification major in Early Childhood and Childhood Education, we are asking for a change in the agenda from that of a discussion item to that of an action item. Normally we send a new program out and get back comments, then we ask for Senate approval, then full SUNY approval, then State Education Department approval. With this case, Dean Givner did some ground work with SUNY and State Ed, and they agreed to allow this as a program revision. Thus, we are able to streamline the process, not waiting for months before the program is approved. This will allow us to possibly be able to have students who are looking at such programs in April, May or June 2009 to find such a program here at Fredonia when they are making their decision as to which institution they really want to attend. We will therefore be asking that you approve this agenda change and allow both the first reading and the vote on this proposal today.
The agenda was amended by unanimous voice vote to move the discussion item on the Early Childhood and Childhood Education dual certification major to the category of action item.
A motion to approve the draft agenda, as amended, and the draft minutes of the meeting of Nov. 3, 2008, was given by Sen. Chuck Stoddart (At Large, Education) and was seconded by Sen. Nick Dhimitri (Student Association). There being no discussion, the vote was taken and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The Chair announced that Sen. Kevin Kearns (Ex Officio, Assoc. VP for Graduate Studies and Research) could not be in attendance. His written report (originally prepared for the Nov. 3 meeting) can be seen on the web site and the ANGEL site.
The Chair announced that Pres. Hefner had to be in Albany today, and has prepared a written report. Copies were handed out to the Senators, and have been posted electronically on both of the Senate sites.
Report of the Vice President for Academic Affairs: Dr. Virginia Horvath
Dr. Horvath thanked Sen. Christopher Taverna (At Large, Divisional) for sharing the results of the Faculty and Professional Affairs Faculty Forum with her. She informed the body that he had asked that she respond, and they agreed that it might be appropriate to do this at the Academic Affairs meeting at the beginning of the spring semester.
There were no questions.
Report of the Chair: Dr. Ana Maria Klein
Chair Klein reported:
- The Senate Executive Committee met to discuss the option to abstain, and we will continue to allow abstentions.
- The customary time frame for Senate meetings had been set to accommodate our use of Fenton 105. Since we are now meeting in the Williams Center, and we understand that Senators have blocked out the 4:00-5:30 PM period, we promise we will try to finish Senate business by 5:30 PM. We will also eliminate the rule for having motions to extend the meeting beyond 5:30. We feel that such a rule actually lengthens the meeting.
The Chair then asked Vice-Chair Bruce Simon to present the Executive Committee’s response to questions about the recent demonstrations on campus during an uninvited public speaker’s visit to campus.
Dr. Simon informed the body that he had been talking with the chairs of the Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee and the Student Affairs Committee about conducting a roundtable discussion on our policy toward uninvited speakers on campus. We hope to use this as a learning opportunity, to think through our reaction as a campus to ideas that we may disagree with. The Executive Committee would work with the two committees to put together a roundtable of 5-10 persons to discuss what occurred before, during and after the recent visit. The main participants would be a mix of students, faculty, and administrators who would speak briefly about this incident, and then perhaps we can come to further clarity with possible recommendations about this kind of event or activity. For example, do we have any wiggle room as a campus honoring requests from uninvited speakers? Of course, the right to free speech must be upheld. What do we do if their free speech clashes with others? We might come back to the Trustees with possible modifications of their policies.
Sen. Stephen Kershnar (Philosophy): will this be a broadly focused review? Some of us have real concerns that the campus speech policy may not be in agreement with the Constitution. Vice-Chair Simon responded that he wasn’t sure that was the same topic. Sen. Kershnar responded with what is a speaker on campus is not clear in our policies. The policy has broader implications. Vice-Chair Simon answered that he is asking the committees to come back to the Senate Executive Committee with recommendations. Hopefully, they will think broadly about those.
There were no further questions.
Chair Klein then asked Sen. Charlie Davis (Ex Officio, Governance Officer) to speak to the body.
Sen. Davis explained how the Senate bylaw amending process works, and presented a proposed bylaw change in the composition of the Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee. The change would add a seat for Reed Library.
Sen. Kerrie Wilkes (Library): at the last meeting of the Senate, we had a really good discussion. The phrase “Reed Library” makes this a confusing change. There are more than just the librarians housed in “Reed Library”. There are the PDC folks and the Learning Center folks. The librarians are “Librarians” or “Library Faculty” will work, but not “Reed Library.” Sen. Davis then informed the body that he had spoken with Randy Gadikian, the Director of Reed Library, and Randy had expressed that he thought the language would work. Sen. Wilkes said the librarians would not be happy with that language. She then offered a friendly amendment to change “Reed Library” to “Library Faculty”. Sen. Davis accepted the friendly amendment, and that change was seconded.
The amendment passed by unanimous voice vote.
Parliamentarian Joseph Straight: the proposal as written reads like this is a three-member committee. Sen. Taverna then moved that the language should read “representative elected by and from each of” This motion was seconded.
Sen. Ziya Arnavut (At Large, Natural Sciences): given the size of the colleges, isn’t the representation of the colleges too little? Each major division of the colleges gets one, and the librarians also get one? This committee is engaged in lots of issues, shouldn’t it be larger? Sen. Taverna responded ideally we should have more, but we can’t schedule meetings now with the size we have. Realistically we need a smaller number to be able to schedule our meetings. Sen. Davis then added that the Executive Committee will be looking over the bylaws because there is revamping necessary.
Sen. Wilkes offered a point of clarity: librarians are the only faculty-status group on campus who have a 12-month contract, and that causes several unique difficulties/situations for the librarians, which are different from those of the professionals and of the teaching faculty.
The amendment passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Doug Johnson (Student Association): what is the “part-time” language all about [in the non-bylaw-change portion of this part of the bylaws]? Sen. Taverna responded that this means that if on the original committee as elected there is a person who is a part-time faculty member, that is fine, but if there is not then a person who is a part-time faculty member will be added.
The proposed bylaw change was then approved by unanimous voice vote. It will now be sent to all UUP and M/C faculty for a vote. At least 25% of the ballots will have to be returned, and the vote of those returned ballots must be 2/3 in the affirmative to have this bylaw change take effect.
ACTION ITEMS
Sen. Klein presented the slate for the Search Committee for the Dean of the School of Business.
Sen. Kershnar: why are only 6 of the roughly 12 members of this search committee currently teaching faculty? Sen. David Ewing (Ex Officio, Dean of Natural and Social Sciences) responded that we needed a balanced committee, and have CSEA, student, administration and alumni included. Because a dean interacts with a wider audience than just teaching faculty, and it is not a faculty position but an M/C position, that the others on the committee represent all the different constituencies with which the dean will be dealing.
Sen. Stoddart moved approval of the slate. The motion was seconded. There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Academic Affairs Committee: Dr. H. Joseph Straight
Early Childhood and Childhood Education dual certification major
Dr Straight prefaced the discussion with:
- Early Childhood encompasses grades K-2
- Childhood encompasses grades 1-6
- This has been approved by the Professional Education Council and the Academic Affairs Committee
This proposal came about because our students have been demanding such a program, and superintendents of school districts have been seeking to hire teachers who are certified in both levels. Our students are doing this already by taking an additional course or two and then taking the State certification exams. We felt the students would do better with a coherent program that would include both certificates.
Sen. Nan Bowser (Ex Officio, Registrar): are we still retaining the two separate programs? Dr. Straight responded yes. The State is thinking of this as a simple revision to our current programs. Sen. Christine Givner (Ex Officio, Dean of Education) informed the body that we did the same thing with childhood inclusive education. SUNY and State Ed sees any combination of current programs as being a revision. New is anything we don’t currently offer. This is really a blending of two of our strongest programs on campus. VP Horvath added for students, this will be a distinct program. But procedurally we don’t have to jump through as many hoops as we would if this were in fact a totally new program.
There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Academic Affairs Committee
Dr. Straight prefaced his report saying that if we can introduce the several proposed minors at this meeting, and then vote on them in February, we have been assured that we can get them into the catalog revision, so there wasn’t the same kind of rush as with the Ed revision we just voted on.
Proposed new minor: English Department: Writing
Questions:
Sen. Jordan pointed out that the 12 credit hours plus the 9 credit hours adds up to 21 credits not 22 (in the five core courses). Sen. Adrienne McCormick (English) responded in our original proposal we had it as 13, not 12. Somehow that got changed without our knowing it. It should read 13.
Proposed new minor: Sport Management and Exercise Science: Athletic Coaching
Proposed new minor: Interdisciplinary Studies: Sports Administration and Communication
Proposed new minor: Interdisciplinary Studies: Sport and Exercise Sciences
Dr. Straight pointed out that these are not really new minors. They have existed as separate tracks under the Interdisciplinary Studies umbrella before Sport Management was moved as a major to the Department of Sport Management and Exercise Science. It is now proposed to make them independent minors in the respective departments of Sport Management and Exercise Science and Interdisciplinary Studies. This is being done to help to better identify these for admissions purposes and change the minor in athletic coaching to the Department of Sport Management and Exercise Science.
Sen. Bowser asked: Communication is among the courses heaviest in demand. Has the chair of Communications agreed to this? Sen. Davis responded: Yes, we set this up with Communications to help them have a minor that could serve their students needs exclusively.
Dr. Straight, having no further questions, said we’ll be back in February for the vote on these.
Proposed Professional Day considerations (See “Report of the Academic Affairs Comm. 12012008”)
Dr. Straight prefaced this discussion saying:
- Neither the Calendar Subcommittee nor the Academic Affairs Committee has a strong view on either of these proposals and therefore we are not endorsing their adoption.
- However, we were asked to look into adding a professional development day and possibly a “universal free time” to the calendar and the schedule, so we are bringing these ideas forth. They may be changed by you, or not. If you wish to adopt either of these, you will have to make the motion at the next meeting of the Senate. These will not be moved by our Committee.
- These two proposals are not mutually exclusive.
Plan A is for the concept of a professional development day for the fall semester. We chose Sept., and this would fall on a Tuesday if fall break came on a Thursday-Friday, or on a Thursday if fall break comes on a Monday-Tuesday.
Plan B is for having a universal free time, which we are calling FredTime because of the many things that begin with FRED on campus! We are thinking that it could be done in the early afternoon in the middle of the week, but how build the rest of the schedule around it?
Points for it or against?
Sen. Bowser: We wondered why you felt it necessary to change all of the time schedules? (We are not opposed to the overall concept.) Why not MWF at 8 and TH at 8:30 and avoid this concept of M/TH and T/F, which frankly we find frightening. Dr. Straight answered: The MWF time slot at 8 AM, you can count on the fingers of two hands the classes that are scheduled then. Sen. Bowser retorted that every campus department will be teaching during the 8:00 and 8:30 time slots if we move to this. Dr. Straight answered: We have to look at the concept of FredTime and then we have to look at how we can implement if, if we want it.
Sen. Phil Hastings (VANM): What about studio classes that run 2 hours and 20 minutes? I personally love this idea. At my last place of employment we had this. Dr. Straight responded: VANM, Music, those departments that have a lot of non-standard times would have to figure out could you make this work by scheduling differently somehow.
Sen. McCormick: We block the noon time. All of our committees would meet in these times as well. We have conflicts, so I can just imagine magnifying that by the whole campus. There will be a lot of gnashing of teeth.
Dr. Beez Schell rose to say that she supports both concepts. Every day is professional development day! Attendance is limited at events on campus because people usually don’t have time to fit them in.
Sen. Arnavut: why not begin at 8:30 every day? We all know that 8:00 is very difficult for students to be fully engaged. And those of us with kids in elementary school could benefit from that start time, as well. Dr. Straight responded that the T-TH 8:30-9:20 time slot is fairly well used. Whether effectively or not, we might question.
Sen. Angela Haas (At Large, Arts): Will we be voting on these at the next meeting? Dr. Straight answered that is the plan. But there will have to be a motion made. We are putting these ideas forward as an aid to the Senate, but we aren’t endorsing either.
Drop/Add Deadlines
Dr. Straight began by reminding the Senate that the first idea about Drop/Add was if we should leave the Your Connection open longer, and we decided not to do that.
Then as part of that discussion, we began thinking that we might be sending the wrong message to students by letting them begin in the second week of a class. Our committee is thinking about this. We could make the add deadline sooner. At one time in our campus’s history, we had the add deadline at the end of the third week of classes.
Discussion:
Sen. Dhimitri: This is something that we have been talking about in Student Association. Lots of students have concerns. Those that work have work schedules that they don’t know until they actually are here. Or they are in a class for the first two meetings, and it turns out to be not what they expected, so they need to drop it and find another one. What about dance, where the first week is essentially auditions to determine if a student is at the right level; some language courses have proficiency testing. We are concerned about losing that flexibility. To add in the second week, we still need the professor’s signature, so they can say no if they feel they’ve covered too much material for an incoming student to be able to catch up. No one was for moving the Add or Drop deadlines in our SA meetings.
Sen. Arnavut: In Nebraska, the drop deadline was Thursday, and the add deadline was Friday of the first week of classes.
Dr. Straight asked for a straw poll:
For the Add deadline:
Early in the first week of classes: 2
Late in the first week of classes: 9
Early in the second week of classes: 15
Late in the second week of classes: 8
For the Drop deadline:
One week before the add deadline (current practice): 1
Two days before the add deadline: 16
One day before the add deadline: 7
Same day as the add deadline: 5
Incomplete grades
Currently instructors are able to assign grades of incomplete (I) when doing their final grades. There have been a few abuses of this. On occasion, some faculty have given the I grade with no discussion with the student. According to the catalog, there should be a dialog that takes place between the faculty member and the student. There should be a cogent reason for giving the I grade, and negotiation as to what needs to be done and when it will be done. Another problem has been when instructors use the I grade to hide the fact that they don’t have their grades done. This buys them a little time, but makes the students in their classes question what is going on. The Academic Affairs Committee would like to have the I grade not so “automatic.” We’d like to have a form to file with the Registrar’s Office. We looked at the data, and over half the I grades that were given in the spring 2007 semester turned to F’s eventually. Next month we will be voting on the idea of having a form that would have to be completed and turned in. The example projected here is not the final form. That would be determined later.
Discussion:
Dr. Roger Byrne: What would be the timeline of doing that? Occasionally we give an incomplete very late (during finals week). If this form needs to be processed before a grade can be delivered…? Dr. Straight responded the idea is that a grade will be in, but if the student without that work deserves an F, they can be given it, but then subsequent discussion with them about the possibility of having an incomplete with appropriate work and due dates agreed to, the grade could be changed to an I.
Sen. Bowser: I would hope that the agreement could come before the grades are due in part for financial aid processes that are run. We could remove the I as an option in Your Connection, having only the Registrar give it after the form has been submitted. We can always change the grade later. The I grade has a standard one semester to complete the required work.
Dr. Byrne: What about the timeline? The student has to complete a research project, they need more time, but they are also applying to grad school. There isn’t the option of an I at that time. Dr. Straight answered there is always the possibility of changing a grade. If a student hasn’t completed his/her work on that research project, and you know that they would want to, you can give them a C, and then you could change the grade after they finish the work. If you use this form before final grades are due, there will be an I on the transcript.
Sen. Jonathan Chausovksy (Political Science): For capstone projects, students sometimes are not able to get them done at the end of the semester. I don’t want to give them a C. I’d prefer giving no grade at all until their project is complete. Dr. Straight responded the semester has an end. Unless you have a course that is understood that it carries over, you can give an X grade. The semester has an end for a reason. Sen. Chausovsky: I don’t mind giving no grade and filling out the form. Dr. Straight responded give them some grade and change it later. Sen. Bowser then added please don’t leave a grade blank! That has a negative impact on financial aid for students.
Sen. McCormick: Can you use an X instead of the C or D? Dr. Straight answered that there was no use for it unless we have an understanding that the course would usually run beyond its stated end.
Sen. David Kaplan (English): Would there be a way to establish a deadline so that forms submitted before that deadline would assign a grade of I without any other intermediate grade being given? Sen. Bowser responded you can get it to us as late as the day grades are due! Since the form can be submitted electronically, as long as it is at the Registrar’s Office by the date of grade submission, it can be an I.
Sen. Arnavut: As Sen. Drout pointed out, there are other issues. For students going to grad school, a lower grade will have an effect, or having a family member see a C or D… how would I feel about that? The I grade should stay. You should find a different way to address the abuses.
Dr. Straight asked everyone to please consult with your constituencies.
Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee
Sen. Taverna thanked the members of the Committee for all the hard work they have done. The Committee did host its fall forum for faculty on Nov. 12. The summary was available on our ANGEL site. Please don’t hesitate to bring your concerns to the Committee or to him. We are trying to become more involved and have more relevance. Therefore, we need participation by those not on the Committee. He then thanked Dr. Horvath for agreeing to give her response to the forum issues that were raised.
Questions:
Sen. Kershnar: Why would you want the response at the Academic Affairs Meeting instead of to this meeting? Sen. Taverna answered since these issues are addressing the faculty, we felt a lot of people should hear the response. We want it to have broad exposure.
Report of the SUNY-Wide University Faculty Senator: Dr. Cheryl Drout
Sen. Drout indicated:
- In a follow-up to that of the last meeting, with regard to the issue of resolutions at the Plenary not being sent early enough to discuss with people on the campuses, she wrote to some of the faculty on the SUNY-wide senate asking if they could find a way to do that. She has received only one response, from Dr. Carl Wiezalis who indicated that this has been a long-standing protocol of that body: the resolutions are prepared only one or two days before each Plenary, and it is the Executive Committee who do this.
- Apparently SUNY Administration is doing an assessment audit of program review evaluations and self-studies. Not every review will be audited, but this is just a heads up in case yours should.
- The Committee on Professional Behavior, Ethical Conduct and Institutional Integrity or the SUNY-wide Senate is conducting a pilot survey and would like feedback. [Information is attached to the minutes of this meeting at both of the Senate sites on campus. See Pilot Survey.] If you could, please take the pilot survey and provide feedback.
- The SUNY Retirees Service Board would like to identify retirees from the various campuses who would like to help. Please think about nominating a retired colleague (if they will allow you to!) Four or five are wanted from the campuses.
- We do need nominations for the alternate senator. Iyad is no longer able to serve in that capacity.
Report of the Middle States Steering Committee
Dr. Roger Byrne and Sen. Kerrie Wilkes reported that the Working Groups are working in their areas, preparing to report to the Steering Committee in March.
There was no New Business.
A motion to adjourn was made by Sen. Dhimitri. The motion was seconded.
There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. The motion to adjourn passed by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney
Faculty Secretary