Faculty Council
Minutes of the meeting of February 9th 1997
The meeting came to order at 4:05pm
Faculty Council Chair Jane B. Romal: May I have a motion to approve the agenda.
Dr. Robert H Deming: So moved.
Dr. Kenneth E Mantai: Second.
Chair Romal: Any discussion? Those in favor of approving the agenda. Aye (all) Opposed (none). Thank you it's passed.
Approval of the minutes of last meeting, did everybody get a copy and read them?
May I have a motion to approve?
Dr. Deming: So moved.
Dr. Mantai: Second.
Chair Romal: Any discussion?
Dr. Jon Kraus: Just for your information I was not at the last meeting in December. But the idea that all changes of tracts within majors was mentioned in our meeting by Faculty Council. As a matter of record we've changed and created new tracts by majors in the past and they were not approved to my knowledge by Faculty Council.
Chair Romal: Any other discussion? Those in favor say aye (all) opposed (none).
Going on to the presidents report, he is over at the reception and will be here as soon as he can, so we'll go on with the agenda and come back to him when it's possible.
The first item on my report is that the Executive Council recommends Jefferson Westwood as the Vice Chair. Are there any further nominations? Not hearing any, the chair will entertain a motion instructing the secretary to cast a unanimous ballot electing Jefferson Westwood as Vice Chair of Faculty Council.
Dr. Nancy Gee: So moved.
Dr. Kraus: Second.
Chair Romal: Any discussion? Those in favor say aye (all) opposed (none). Thank you.
The other things are the employee surveys which some of you objected to being yanked out of the library. They are available in the offices of all the executive council and you're more than welcome to come and read them.
We are working on putting together a search committee for the Vice President of Administration position. And we will have that available for approval next time. The ad however will go out. We decided it was very straight forward and so the President will put the ad out, and the committee should be formed by the time the responses come in.
The last thing is that the Administrative Review Committee is going ahead with its review, as we had planned before.
Are there any questions on any of those? Julius Adams does not have a report and he could not be here today so we're on to the standing committee report.
Dr. Amin U. Sarkar: If there is an Administrative Review going on, then how do we go about recruiting a Vice President for Administration ahead of that. It seems at the present time we have four vice presidents with equal status and equal title. Since the review you mentioned is going on, that means we give the equal priorities when resources are not in abundance, that means we have to make a choice.
We have to make priorities. So do we have to have four equal vice- presidents, when the academics seems to be only 25% of the cabinet. The vision of the college, for any academic institution, the focus is the academics. In many institutions there are probably not four vice-presidents.
There is considerable concern by the faculty about the number of administrative positions we have at the top. Whether we really need four vice-presidents, when we only have one dean in the college. If we need those four vice-presidents, will they have equal status, and will they have equal titles.
So pending those decisions and at least since the review is coming. . . I think that this is a good time to postpone this recruitment, and we can go ahead with the interim vice position.
Chair Romal: Is that a motion, or is that just a comment?
Dr. Sarkar: This is a comment, and if somebody is willing to make a motion.
Chair Romal: Well the president isn't here to address that. Dr. Sarkar: If we go ahead with this recruitment, that would mean we agree to four vice-presidents. Once you recruit a person it becomes very difficult to deal with that position. And since the position has fallen vacant, this is the time to rethink whether the president needs four vice-presidents with equal title and status to support him. If he needs that, then we must go ahead. But if we want to review then I think we should wait for the review beforehand.
Chair Romal: Alright, so you agree they should go ahead with the review. That's not what your comments are about.
Dr. Sarkar: I would like the review to go ahead and after the report of the review is available, the we go forward with the recruitment.
Chair Romal: Well in the first place we need a motion to discuss this. And then once we have a motion on the floor, people who have opinions and facts about this may state their opinions and facts. So may I have a motion to that effect.
Dr. Sarkar: I move to postpone the recruitment of the vice-president at this time. Pending the report of the review.
Dr. Kraus: Second.
Dr. Deming: I move to table, pending discussion in the presence of the president.
Patrick Rice: Second.
Chair Romal: Vote on the motion to table.
Dr. Thomas Ryrick: The point of information is that the tabling can simply be taken off the table later at the same meeting?
Chair Romal: Yes.
Chair Romal: Those in favor of tabling it say aye (all) opposed (none).
Alright the motion is tabled. We'll go on to the committee reports. Steve do you have a committee report from governance?
Dr. Stephen E Rees: Since the December meeting, two elections have been concluded. In the election for faculty council representatives, the following results were announced. From Professional Staff - Management Confidential, Sylvia Clarke and James Jackson were elected. In Natural and Social Sciences Ken Mantai, Tom Rywick, George Browder, Richard Weist, Michael Grady, and Seyed Agazadeh. There were no vacancies in Arts, Education, and Humanities to be filled.
Secondly create the new General College Program Standing Committee. The election results were as follows: From Professional staff and Management Confidential, Penny Deakin. From Natural and Social Sciences Ken Mantai, and Tom Rywick. From Arts, Education, and Humanities, Dan Ihasz and Steven Mayo.
Additionally, during the month of February a call for nominations will go forth for vacancies on Planning and Budget. That will go out to all faculty. That Planning and Budget election will occur in the month of March.
Those of you who picked up a copy of this list of Faculty Council, as you came in the door, be appraised that there are a number of errors. I will be creating a corrected version, and in the interest of time, I won't tell you what those changes need to be at the moment. At the next meeting you'll simply get a revised copy. As you read that document, if you come across any errors that I've made, please call them to my attention.
Dr. Deming: Is John Anufragma one of the things you've already caught?
Dr. Rees: No.
Dr. Deming: I mean the fact that he retired a year ago.
Dr. Rees: Nobody told me that, I have to be informed of these things.
Dr. Deming: Does that mean that Arts, Education, and Humanities are one person down.
Dr. Rees: That would appear to be the case.
Dr. Kraus: I presume that means we need to do an election. May I ask how many positions are open in Budget and Planning?
Stephen E. Rees: I need to be in touch with you concerning that. I know we've got one person who resigned, so you and I need to be in conversation.
Chair Romal: Alright were going to suspend the standing committee reports, and let our new president give his report. It's customary that you give it right after the approval of the minutes, so you now have the floor Dr. Hefner.
Dr. Dennis Hefner: Thank you, I apologize for being late but we had the reception for Isaac Stern after the concert today, and I wanted to make sure that all of the trustees got off in one piece. After all we want their votes later. They did, but I do apologize for being a few minutes late getting here. I don't know what the custom is on the campus here in terms of the Presidents report. I just have a few items I thought I might mention in a fairly quick fashion. If it's appropriate I'll open it up for question and answers.
Chair Romal: That's fine.
Dr. Dennis Hefner: I just might preface my remarks by saying that today's program with Isaac Stern, was absolutely splendid. The faculty and students did a marvelous job with that concert. For those of you that had an opportunity to attend, I think it was a real treat to be there. If you had a chance to hear the remarks of Mr. Stern he was very supportive of education. He talked about the need for the Governor to reconsider budget, as it especially relates to the TAP program. He didn't get quite as specific as TAP but I think every one in the room knew what he was talking about. So it was quite an event.
It was absolutely a stunning time for Jan and me, the very first group that we had over to our house. Our boxes arrived a little over two and a half weeks ago, and so we have been working steadily to make that house into something. We got through the move in pretty good shape over all.
But it was a splendid program, a great opportunity to do some lobbying with the trustees. We'll see what happens over time, but I think we've certainly put a wonderful foot forward.
A couple things I was going to report to you. We have a few personnel changes you probably are aware of. David Burdette will be going down to Virginia, and in his stead as an interim will be Tracy Bennett. Tracy will be assuming duties effective this Friday, so it's a Valentines Day change. David leaves town at five o'clock on the thirteenth to go down and assume his duties starting next Monday. And we wish him the very best.
I wanted to report for the interim Affirmative Action Officer. Karen Popilia will be acting in that stead. She does not want to be in the position permanently. She said that specifically. And that was my intent that we would have an acting and she will be handling it for the next four to five weeks. Hopefully within five weeks we will have a permanent Affirmative Action Officer appointed. I met with the Affirmative Action Committee, and they promised that they will have some recommendations to me on the position and how it might be structured by next Friday; that's the 21st, and so my intent is to then do an on-campus search after that and have an appointment sometime in March.
Enrollments, well we came in on an annualized basis within the target. I know that a few people in the Cabinet were wincing, how can you say we came in within target. We we're slightly down. We're down about 69 students but that's within a plus or minus 2% window, and in California that is target. And so as far as I'm concerned, we're in target. I think we're in very good shape. For applications, we're looking very good, we're still ahead of last year. The latest report that came in was that we're 3.2% ahead for Freshmen, and overall we're about 2.5% ahead of last year. Our campus, and Purchase are the only two of the University Colleges within the SUNY system that are on the plus side at this particular time. I was saying that to the trustees several times. I think they got the message, and were impressed with that. We're looking pretty good on enrollments.
The Governor's budget as you know, is going to be played out in the coming weeks and months ahead. I was in a phone conversation with all of the presidents a couple of days ago. The Chancellor wasn't able to join us. It was just the Presidents getting together. The Trustees have passed a resolution that was introduced by Trustee Gardner from Buffalo indicating that we should be advocating in favor of the original budget submitted by the Trustees, which means it's a budget that doesn't have an 124 Million dollar reduction in the baseline budget, and it's a budget that does not have an 175 Million reduction in TAP. And so there will be a great deal of grass roots efforts going on in terms of the restoration. Our hope is that the system will be effective at helping also with that restoration. I think we've got a big job ahead of us but at least we are not hampered by the fact that we had last year, when the Board of Trustees came in and they in fact had voted to support and endorse the Governors budget. They did not do that this year. So at least we're not going to get that. But it is something that will be continuing through the Spring.
We had a meeting of the Campus Advocacy group last Thursday. This involved representation from UUP, CSEA, we had area wide Chamber of Commerce representation. The Mayors were there to discuss increasing our use of advocacy. One of the strategies that we certainly talked about was to try and get to all of the major chief executive officers of companies within the area, and see what we can do to generate some interest in them putting their weight behind this support for SUNY.
In terms of administrative reviews and we're probably going to have a report on that later today, or you may have already had that particular report. We've kind of talked about a division of labor. I assume that's where we are going to be after today's meeting in that the Faculty Council would go forward and conduct a review of the office in general, including the structure. And that for reviews of the administrative personnel, I'll go ahead and conduct those particular reviews myself, so it will kind of be divided between the two issues, between the personnel and the functioning of the division. I believe I've told most people although I don't know if everyone in the room has heard, I would like to begin with a review of Academic Affairs this spring, and so that will be commencing following the end of this particular meeting.
There is a function that is going on that I would ask you to alert your students to. I know there hasn't been much publicity out yet, but the black history month activities have begun. I got a chance to be at the very first function. Hanosey who is in the back of the room was there. He gave a wonderful presentation as a preface to the program. And anything you can do to encourage your students to be involved in the activities for the remainder of the month, I would greatly appreciate.
Just a few other quick things. The campus vision statement is due in to the system in April. I think we need to take that as an opportunity to say, that's fine, we need to develop a vision. We need to make sure our vision is comprehensive enough so that it puts us in the type of position that we need to be, and that we need to get something in by April 1st. It talks about programs that we have now, and also talks about what's needed in order to be producing a well-rounded and well-educated student from a good liberal arts college. I think it's an opportunity; let's grab it.
The presidents in the meeting did express concern at some of the classifications that the system has put in as sort of a prelude to the RAM (Resource Allocation Model). But anyway one of the things they put in is they want a distinction between a comprehensive college and a college. And to me when I heard that, I thought, oh that's fine a comprehensive college means a good broad comprehensive curriculum as opposed to something that's very specialized like a four-year Agricultural-Tech colleges. The definition that the system has proposed, and it's not finalized yet but it's proposed, is based on the percentage of students that are graduate students. That's not a norm that anybody in the nation has ever used. I've never even heard of that as a norm for comprehensives. A number of the presidents were a bit concerned about that particular definition, and I think there's a group that will be coming in and making some strong recommendations on that.
I just might point out that we had some good news on our annual funds, and kudos to Jean. The annual funds last year topped one million dollars, and other than during the year when we were running our major capital campaign, this is the first time it has topped a million dollars. I know we need those dollars, and it's good to have external support coming in too.
Finally, I just might mention that this Friday, and I didn't realize it was Valentines day when I set the date, I will be making a presentation at the all-campus meeting. Also Jane will be making a presentation on behalf of the Faculty Council. There will be presentations also by UUP and CSEA at that particular meeting. But I think that's a chance for us to talk about some issues, and a little bit about the future. We are also going to have a reception afterwards. We are going to continue the tradition started just a little over a week ago of having some kind of a program with a reception on Friday night. Any excuse for a party.
Let me open it up if there's any discussion or questions.
Chair Romal: We did have something we put on the table because we wanted you to hear the discussion. I don't know if this the time we should bring it up. Well then you might as well sit down, and you'll hear the discussion.
Dr. Dennis Hefner: You sound just like Isaac Stern, I gotta tell you one thing. We may have looked a little disorganized up there on the stage. After the first number began, we were told we were supposed to then get up and walk over to the side. And Mr. Stern said I'm not moving during that piece, and so I sat back down, and I'll do that now.
Chair Romal: Do I have a motion to remove the motion from the table.
Dr. Rywick: So moved.
Dr. Brenda Joyce Stephens: Second
Chair Romal: Is there any discussion about the issue. This is the motion to discuss our idea that we would like you to put off the search for vice president of administration until the issue of how many vice presidents this college should have is addressed. Any discussion.
Vice Chair Jefferson Westwood: Professor Sarkar, just in terms of background for the benefit of Dr. Hefner, brought up this point in reference to the administrative review which is going forward under the committee, as you know, being chaired by Dr. Deming.
I would be against the motion because we did bring this up with the president when the Executive Committee met with him if the portfolio duties for this vice president would be the same. And he said yes. It made sense to those of us around the table, I think, that the things under Vice President Burdett you would still want under a vice president for administration. My own view is that you would want to do that even if you were doing something different with some of the others such as downgrading them to a dean or director- type level.
That seems to be the model in the rest of the system. I also think from past experience, recruiting is going to be easier for a quality person if you have a vice president title attached onto it, than if you call it Director of Campus Management or something like that. I think it is something that we should move forward on even if we don't ultimately end up with four VP's. That is one that I would want to have at that level. Some of the others maybe so, maybe not.
The other thing is, I am not sure that the work that the Administrative Review Committee is going to really address the issue of should there be four vice presidents. They will be looking at how effectively have the offices been functioning, and what have been the major needs and issues. I don't think it's part of their charge to try to redesign the management system of the campus. I would vote against it.
Dr. Rywick: There was one thing that was said when the motion was raised that I thought was interesting that I did want to talk about. I really have no idea about the efficacy of how many vice presidents and so on, but the issue about the make up of the cabinet was raised. I never really quite thought about that. There could always conceivably be a situation where people directly involved in the academic issues are a very small part of the cabinet, and that would bother me. So I'd like to discuss the issue just to raise and express opinions upon other options or possibilities about how more academic people besides vice presidents perhaps could be on the cabinet.
Dr. Dennis Hefner: I would like to just talk about the motion itself in terms of Vice President for Administration. The reason I was suggesting we go forward this spring was because I couldn't imagine us in these difficult budget times not having someone who would be a Chief Financial Officer and would be permanent in that particular position. Those are positions that I think you can effectively advertise for starting in February and have a successful search.
In terms of the title for that particular position, I do think it needs to be at the vice presidential level. I think we will attract stronger candidates. So with those thoughts in mind, I might request to go forward and conduct a search for a Vice President of Administration. That doesn't mean that sometime down the road there might not be some minor changes in whatever the portfolio is for that person, but I think they would be minor, and not major. That's a pretty big job that is required right now.
Chair Romal: What about the cabinet, who is on the cabinet right now maybe some people don't know.
Dr. Dennis Hefner: In terms of the cabinet it's vice presidents at this time. That's who's on the cabinet. I will admit, I haven't given any thought, or concerns, about whether there should be some other structures for providing advice and council. And ensuring that we have good form of shared governance. So any ideas or thought that you have, I'd appreciate hearing them.
The cabinet is merely the president and the four vice presidents. That's the way it has been structured in the past. And I haven't gone in and changed any of those at this time.
Dr. Sarkar: The reason I raised that point is because since you mentioned we are going to have a review of the administration. I thought that since there is concern among the faculty about the structure of the top administration and also the number of people in the top administration. It is a good time to decide whether the president wants to keep the four equal vice presidents at this time. Then it makes good sense to go ahead and fill that vacant position. But if the president wants to review that, to look at the structure in view of the concern of the faculty, then I think it's a good idea to see whether we want to merge two vice presidents into one vice president.
Like in the University of California system I'm sure the President is very much aware, the University of California call the Presidents for the system, as a whole, and for the campus they call them Chancellors. So in the University of California system at the top level they have the Chancellor and they have the Vice Chancellor who is also in charge of administration and university relations. So if he wants to make that kind of changes. If we hire one person for one specific job now and later on make the university relations vice president and the administrative vice president into one position, it might then become a problem.
Chair Romal: Any other discussion on the motion?
Vice Chair Westwood: Could you repeat the motion please.
College Senate Secretary Julie Henry: The motion was that we postpone the search for the Administrative Vice President until after the review was completed.
Vice Chair Westwood: Thank you.
Chair Romal: Those in favor aye (one) those opposed neigh (the rest). Alright the motion is defeated, thank you.
We will go on then to our committee reports. I see that Joe Straight is not here, is there any report from Academic Affairs? (None) Planning and Budget, Jon, do you have a report?
Dr. Kraus: I just have a small point to make. The long range Planning and Budget sub-committee met in January on the subject of the review of the third year of the technology plan and where it was going. And the Planning and Budget Committee has met as a whole on several sub-items dealing with the total mission, as well as being educated on the budget. There was a meeting last Thursday of the long range planning subcommittee at which time Dr. Hefner talked with us and set out a meeting agenda for the future. I would like Dr. Hefner to comment on that.
Dr. Dennis Hefner: We have a couple of major issues coming up almost immediately. One which just arrived on campus last week, and we have to respond to it sometime soon. I forget whether it's February 26th or February 28th, is what would be our future enrollment targets for the next five years. The system just sent a request out, and they didn't give us a great deal of time to talk about it. We did have a good discussion to at least begin the dialogue on where this campus should be and where it should be going.
A suggestion that I had brought forward to the committee was that for next year we should continue to remain at 4500 FTE as our target, but that in subsequent years we should be looking at pushing the envelope a bit and see if we could push the enrollments up. That would be about a hundred a year. I think that was the figure we were playing around with. One of the reasons for that, well there's actually two reasons for that.
One of them is pretty crass; it's money. I will admit it, even if we don't make the enrollment target, just having our target go up means we're going to receive more state money. It's a little over 300,000 dollars for each hundred FTE even if we don't make the enrollment target. So that was one concern. Then if you make the enrollment target ,and you have those additional students, not only do you have extra tuition, you have more revenue coming through the dorm fund. You sell more books, and on down the line it would give us a chance to correct some of the paralysis that exists on the campus.
I've been going around meeting with programs and I've been looking at the fact book. There's no doubt that if we could get a little infusion of additional funds, I think we could put up some really very good views. And so we had a good discussion to talk about that as a strategy.
Then we also talked a bit about the vision statement. That's coming up in April, and it seems to me that the vision statement will have an impact on long range planning for this particular campus. It seemed like that would be a vehicle for that group to be involved in and working on those issues. In conjunction with that it seemed to me that we needed to take a look at where future academic programs should be. Especially if we get to growth point. Where should some of those be and that was a logical committee to use as a sounding board for those. Those were some of the items that we talked about at the meeting. I thought it was a good meeting, and I appreciated it.
Chair Romal: Any questions on that?
Dr. Richard Weist: When you proposed these targets, did you also propose the additional faculty that are going to be teaching these students?
Dr. Dennis Hefner: Yes, and in fact I was going to say more about that on the 14th. I hate to throw everything out in this meeting, but I'll go ahead and at least say a little bit. It seemed to me that for next year we need to do planning on where we think the budget is going to be coming in. I think we also in order to get us out of the situation where we are now, having enrollment kind of drifting down so we're both losing tuition and we're losing state revenue, that we need to be looking at planning to infuse more money into the classroom for next year, so that we can turn it around.
I think it's critical for the long run life of this particular campus, and I think we need to plan for it now. We need to implement it by next fall. I have asked to see if we can have at least a pretty good pass at the budget completed by March 7th of this year. I don't want to spend a lot of time on the budget, I want to make some good guestimates. Let's do it and move on from there. But I'll be suggesting on Friday that we look very carefully at the classroom and an infusion of funds going into the classroom for next year, so that we can be in position to move forward in subsequent years.
I think if we don't do that, five years from now we'll be looking at the campus and we'll be down around 4000 FTE. There will be fewer programs and fewer faculty to teach them. I don't want to be in that situation.
I should add that on the enrollment, in the meeting that David Burdett and I had in Albany, there was a great deal of support for our campus being one of the few campuses that would be in a position to have the enrollment target be going up over time. And as you know, last year there were a number of campuses that had their enrollment targets reduced, because they just weren't meeting the targets. They know we're basically on target, we are certainly within the 2% window this year. Most years we have been basically where we said our target would be. The applications are looking strong at this time. We certainly have the physical capacity to be serving 5000 full-time students.
Chair Romal: Any other questions? Joan Burke isn't here but is there any report from the Professional Service Committee. You know we're looking at these and if your not meeting we might just disband some of you. Student Affairs, did they ever get a chair do you know Mike?
Mr. Michael Dimitri: Our next meeting is this Friday the 14th at 8:00, and our prime purpose is to elect a chair, and we'll report on a regular basis.
Chair Romal: Thank you very much. Now we're going on to new business. The UUP resolution is on the back of your agenda. I thought there was going to be someone here from UUP.
Vice Chair Westwood: I believe Tom Matthews the VP for Professionals is here, as is Thomas Morrissey.
Dr. Robert H Deming: I move the resolution on negotiations and contracting out.
Dr. George Browder: Second.
Chair Romal: Now you may discuss it. Thank you.
Mr. Tom Matthews(chair of negotiations, visiting from Geneseo): The last three years have been very difficult trying to get a contract. We have tentatively settled most items at the bargaining table except for one major issue. That's the issue of contracting out. What the state has demanded of us, is the right to contract out any and all our jobs in the bargaining unit. I emphasize any and all. There are no restrictions. Nor will the state put any restrictions, we attempted to deal with this in language. We attempted to deal with it you may recall, if you read our publications a year ago about this time we put some language together that would make it difficult and expensive for the state to contract out our work.
That's when we discovered such issues as the state would not restrict who might bid. If a department or a program were to be contracted out including internal corporations: Research Foundation, FSA, College Foundations, and it's at that point that we decided that we could not accept such a demand, and that's where the contract negotiations have been stalled since that time almost a year ago. It was in March. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have about the issue, but we see it as a real threat to tenure.
You've probably read about the example of the German department in Albany, and we believe that that is an example of what could happen. While I'm sure that our new president would not be doing that at Fredonia, and I don't think that Chris Stall from the Geneseo campus has a great deal of interest in this. Nevertheless, presidents change, and administrations change. We don't trust the language. Only the German department was going to be eliminated, and they are going to contract out the work to a community college, a private college that's connected. We have real difficulty with that, and we think that this is a serious threat. If they can do it to German they can do it to Physics, they can do it to any department in the university. So that's why we have been fighting this issue.
Chair Romal: Any other discussion?
Mr. Tom Matthews: I'd just like to mention what that meant: contracting out. If they form a corporation, they can eliminate an entire department or any member of the department and say this function is now up for bids, and we have somebody who is willing to do it for X number of dollars at cost, with no health benefits, no pension, no security, and that's it. And you could bid for it yourself, your own position but you have to bid for it under the conditions that that corporation would put up.
Dr. Krause: I had specific concern about some of the language of the resolution. I'm concerned with the second paragraph. The first paragraph talks about the recognition of the obligation of the faculty of each college who are to participate significantly in the initiation and development and implementation of the educational program, which covers a great deal. It goes on to say, in recognition that is through the negotiated terms and conditions of employment as set forth in the Agreement between UUP and the State of New York that we most effectively are enabled to fulfill that obligation.
I think a very large percentage of people, even if the baseline of our existence here has a great deal to do with the contract, most efforts in terms of participating significantly in initiation, development, and implementation occur through other means. I was wondering if you would agree to a change of the language, that I would make it as a motion to insert the following after the words "in recognition that." I would have a period at the end of New York which is the next to the last word in the second line. It would read as such. "In recognition that (and I'll add the language) one of the major means for fulfilling that obligation is through negotiating the terms and conditions of our employment as set forth in the agreement between United University Professionals and the State of New York."
Chair Romal: Do we have a second on that motion?
Dr. Browder: Second.
Chair Romal: Any discussion?
Dr. Joseph Chilberg: I have a question related to the gentleman who was just speaking. Where are we going? Can the state hang out the next two years and just hang out for a new contract?
Mr. Tom Matthews: The trustees have a very significant role behind the scenes in negotiations. And we are talking, on the other campuses, we had thirty-some picketing sites all over the state this week. What we are trying to do is to convince the trustees to drop this demand. If they were to agree to drop this demand, I think we could have a contract very quickly. So we believe that behind the scenes, the trustees do in fact have a major role, and have played a major role, and I won't go into all the details. I could tell you a lot more about that, but the point is that we think they're the major players in this situation.
Chair Romal: Now we should get back to the amendment to the motion. Is there any discussion particularly on the amendment to the motion?
Dr.George Browder: I wish Jon would explain how this is essentially different.
Dr. Jon Krause: The difference is that it indicates that the negotiating terms are important to UUP, as well as one of the most effective means of meeting the obligations set forth in the first paragraph. The sentence as it originally read, says that it is the most effective means to fill that obligation through the terms of the Agreement. The difference is that one says it is one of the major needs, the other sounds like it is the major distinction.
Chair Romal: Any other questions or discussion on the amendment?
Dr. Deming: I wonder if what Jon wants to accomplish couldn't be accomplished simply by striking in the third line of the second paragraph the words "most effectively".
I move to amend the amendment, in the third line of the second paragraph remove the words "most effectively." And if the proposer of the first amendment finds that satisfactory he can simply withdrawal his amendment, if he agrees.
Dr. Jon Krause: Agreed.
Mr. Tom Matthews: If anything it makes it worse, I think this makes it sound like the only way we in which we meet this is through UUP, which is what Jon was trying to avoid before. I was happy with Jon's change.
Dr. Deming: I withdraw my amendment.
Chair Romal: Alright we're back to the original ,striking "it" and putting in "In recognition that one of the major means for fulfilling that obligation is threw negotiating the terms and conditions of our employment as set forth in the agreement between United University Professionals and the State of New York." Is there any other discussion? Those in favor (most) opposed (2) The amendment carries.
We are now addressing the resolution, any discussion on that?
Vice Chair Westwood: Is it your intention to, if this is adopted, immediately have copies sent to each of the trusties and the Chancellor?
Chair Romal: They just asked us to pass it, they didn't ask us to send it.
Vice Chair Westwood: I'm asking what your intention is, if not, I will insert an amendment to instruct you to have copies sent, because if we adopt it, and nothing happens it's of little use it seems. I would ask you to send it via an amendment here to instruct the Chair to have copies immediately dispatched to all members of the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor.
Chair Romal: Is there a second?
Dr. Deming: Second.
Chair Romal: Any discussion on that? How many people are in favor of the amendment to the motion aye (all) opposed (none). Alright the second amendment passed.
Now we're back to the motion to pass the resolution. How many people are in favor of the motion to pass the resolution? Aye (all) opposed (none). Alright the resolution passed. Thank you all very much.
Now we have one last thing on the agenda.
Ms. Vivian GarciaConnover: Mr. Matthews, did you say that the intention was to drop the contract out clause entirely?
Mr. Tom Matthews: That is correct.
Ms. Connover: There aren't any plans to allow contracting out for professional services as opposed to faculty services?
Mr. Tom Matthews: There are not. I think we are all in this together.
Chair Romal: We need a motion now for the last resolution on the agenda.
Dr. Jon Krause: So moved.
Dr. George Browder: Second.
Chair Romal: Any discussion? Those in favor of the second resolution, to recommend Dr. Dallas K. Beal as President Emeritus, those in favor aye (all) those opposed (none). Alright is there any other new business?
Mr. Joseph Chilberg: I would like to make an announcement to the Faculty Council and to also bring a resolution to be brought up and tabled to next meeting. Would this be acceptable to the Chair?
Chair Romal: That's fine
Mr. Joseph Chilberg: Some of you may be aware that I'm involved with a radio show with our local campus radio station called Voice to Voice. It's an opportunity to open up the airwaves to communication among the members of the campus and the local community. We've found through some of our experiences that we all don't hear each others voices. Certainly if you've read the survey conducted last semester, it would be some indication of that. And of course some of the voices that don't get heard are our students.
We are creating this opportunity, I'll pass this out so you can take a copy. I'd like to encourage faculty, administration, and staff to listen in on Wednesdays from six o'clock to seven, because folks are starting to talk about things that you do, or don't do. And I don't have any way of detecting whether all the information is on the table, I have no way of understanding what are the future plans people may have to resolve some of these concerns.
Case in point, a couple of students called last Wednesday, our first show of the season, concerned about dorm security issues. Of course I'm not an expert in this area, but there was no one to talk of any other point of view about it, so it may be worth checking in. Just to make sure that you have a chance to call in and see what's going on and straighten things out, or pray tell that that we have something we want to share will our audience. But I would encourage you all to listen and call.
On a second point. Some have related to the issue of communication in our community. I would like to move that, Resolved: That the Faculty Council recommend that President Hefner establish a campus wide common meeting time during the weekly course schedule. Furthermore that this common meeting time be eighty minutes in length, for example, on a T-Th schedule, or perhaps on a late M-W-F schedule at three o'clock. That's my motion.
Chair Romal: Do I have a second?
Dr. Deming: Point of order. Mr. Joseph Childberg, not being an elected member of council cannot move except by petition of ten members. I on the on the other hand motion whatever he said.
Tom Rywick: Second.
Tom Rywick: Move to table.
??: Second.
Chair Romal: Those in favor of tabling the motion aye (all) opposed (none). All right it passes, any other new business?
Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Vice Chair Westwood: So moved.
Chair Romal: All those in favor of adjourning aye (all).
The meeting adjourned at 5:05pm
Attendance:
Professional Staff / Management Confidential:
[x] Sylvia Clarke
[E] Fabrizio Daloisio
[x] Susan Maloney
[x] Kevin Michki
[x] Patrick Rocheleau
[x] Terry Tzitzis
[x] James Jackson
[x] Lisa Marrano
[ ] William Ortega
[x] Martha Smith
[x] Charlene Wiles
Arts, Education, and Humanities:
[x] Candice Brown
[x] Janet Fairbairn
[ ] Harry Jacobson
[x] Rose Klassen
[E] Lawrence Maheady
[x] George Sebouhian
[x] Robert Deming
[ ] Carl Farraro
[x] Robert Klassen
[ ] Kenneth Lucey
[x] David Ludlam
Natural and Social Sciences:
[E] Seyed-Mahmoud Agazadeh
[x] George Browder
[x] Michael Grady
[ ] Gary Lash
[x] Greg Prechtl
[x] Amin Sarkar
[ ] Mario Vassallo
[ ] Deborah Welch
[x] Nancy Boynton
[x] Nancy Gee
[x] Jon Kraus
[x] Kenneth Mantai
[x] Thomas Rywick
[x] Brenda Joyce Stephens
[x] Richard Weist
Ex. Officio Members:
[ ] Julius Adams (Faculty Senator)
[x] Jean Malinoski (VP, Development)
[x] Greg Harper (Associate Dean, Faculty)
[ ] James Hurtgen (Dean for Liberal Studies)
[x] Pablo Gion-Fanjul (SA President)
[ ] Julie Dennis (Council Secretary)
[x] Jane Romal (Chair, Faculty Council)
[x] Jefferson Westwood (Vice Chair, Faculty Council)
[x] Tracy Bennett (Interim VP, Administration)
[x] Michael Dimitri (VP, Student Affairs)
[x] David Hess (VP, Academic Affairs)
[x] Dennis Hefner (President)
[x] Stephen E. Rees (Chair, Governance Committee) [x] Sharon Zablotney (Dean of the Faculty)
Guests:
Ron Ambrosetti
Minda Rae Amiran
Karen Mills-Courts
Melinda Karnes
Tracy S. Bennett
Nan Bowser
Kahan Sablo
Vivian Garcia Conover
Jacky Swansinger
Tom Malinoski
Thomas Morrissey
Tom Matthews