Faculty Council
Minutes of the meeting of April 14th 1997
1. Chairperson Jane Romal called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. A quorum was present. The Agenda and Minutes of the March meeting were approved as distributed.
2. President's Report (Dr. Dennis Hefner):
We have received a letter from the system on the Bachelor Degree in Social Work, and that has been approved at the system level, and has now gone on to the State Department of Education for registering. That will be all signed, sealed, and delivered in plenty of time for next fall.
Just a quick update on searches, the Affirmative Action Officer committee and myself are interviewing two individuals this week, and there should be a notice of appointment next week. That search is almost completed.
For the Administrative Vice President search, the committee has begun reviewing files, and so that is underway at the present time.
For the Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs search, the committee is being formed. I talked to an individual about being the chair, and I am still contacting the other individuals that were suggested by the Executive Committee of Faculty Council. One question that came up, for the search the committee that would help to screen the individuals, there will just be one interview of the individuals. It won't be a public interview. It will just be a private interview, and then there will be an interim appointment. We won't be going through a whole campus interview or anything for an interim appointment.
About a week and a half ago we had a presidents' meeting in Albany, and it was a fairly short meeting, began at twelve, and was concluded by three o'clock. We went through a number of issues, and I'll just give you a real quick highlight of some of the key things that were being discussed at that meeting.
First the Chancellor search is progressing, although since this meeting there has been a new development. You probably saw an article on this reported in the newspapers. There has been a suggestion on the part of the Chairman of the Board that Jack Ryan be named the permanent Chancellor; he has been the Interim Chancellor. That is under discussion by the search committee. I believe they are meeting today to discuss that very issue. So it could be that we would have an announcement coming from Albany any minute now. That seems to be at least one of the directions that the committee is heading. At least Jack Ryan knows our campus. I think he is someone that we can work with, so I think it could in fact be good news for our campus.
The budget update was given to us in terms of where we stood relative to next year's budget, and for the most part the Assembly has completed its work. They have recommended full restoration of TAP and the full restoration of our baseline budget. The Senate has yet to complete their work, and we are probably going to get from the Senate a restoration of some of the money but not all of it. And there will probably be a student tuition increase. But now the talk is that it will be somewhere in the one to two-hundred dollar a year range, rather than the four-hundred dollar a year that the Governor had proposed. Of course then it comes out of the Senate, and the Assembly goes into Conference Committee, and then they work out the final details, but it does appear that we are going to get most of the money restored. I don't know if we're going to get it all restored, but at least things seem to be moving along fairly nicely.
There was a presentation on the system office reorganization. They were not very specific; it was more generality other than when then got to the area of the Student Affairs Office. They are definitely going to be downsizing the Student Affairs in the System Offices. After all system offices do not have student bodies. SUNY is one of the few systems in the nation that has a separate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs. Those have been fairly uncommon for many states for a number of years. There is a major move underfoot there. Other than that, they didn't get into too many of the other details. They are going to come out as time goes along.
There was further decentralization going on. You probably read that dorm funds have been decentralized from the campuses now. This means that we have full authority, full responsibility also for the dormitory allocations. Plus there is another decentralization of the budget that is going to occur fairly soon. This is what's called the IFR buyout. At the moment the IFR funds are taxed a certain amount that goes to SUNY Central. That amount that goes to SUNY Central, a portion of that, is then given back to the campus. What they are going to do is they are going to stop taxing us, but they're also going to stop giving us that other money back. For our campus it's going to be pretty close to a wash. We may come out a few dollars ahead. We are not going to make a lot off of it. But at least it gets us out of this game where money is flowing back and forth between the campus and the system. So the IFR dollars would at least be staying on the campus. We still would have to make up that shortfall that they have, but I think that is a move in the right direction. The Board is committed to passing that for next year. So within the next two Board meetings it will be coming up as an action item. So we were told to be prepared for it.
There was some discussion of an out of state tuition policy. This is one that our campus has been in the forefront pushing. There is no doubt that something will be going forward to the Board within a Board meeting or two. Some of the details are still being worked on, but there does seem to be a fair amount of support on that.
The final item that was discussed at the meeting, and this was a real short report, was that there was no news to report relative to the contract negotiations. We just received virtually nothing. I sent an email to Dick Redding to see if I could find out a little more because there just wasn't much that was forthcoming. There haven't been discussions, and if there are discussions they're not telling me that the discussions are occurring. That was the piece of gloomy news that we had.
For the fourth item in my report I would like to ask Tracy Bennett if he could take a few minutes to talk about the budget book that we have sent out. You all should have received a copy in the mail, all the members of the Faculty Council, plus a copy was sent to every single department on campus. So there is at least one book somewhere in your department if you haven't seen it. Tracy if you would just say a few words about that, and that will end my report.
Tracy Bennett: I hope everybody has seen it. We tried a new format. We asked for comments on the format. So far I haven't been overwhelmed with telephone calls so I guess I'll take that as good news at this point. It's the first book of three. The second book will be the IFR accounts, which we are working on right now. So that will give you a complete accounting of all IFR accounts hopefully in a very consistent format with what you are seeing here. The third book, which we will have out before the end of the semester, will be the Differ budget, the Dorm budget, the FSA and the Foundation. So basically you will see all funds, all accounts in as similar a manner as we can present.
I'd like to just kind of run though three points if I could. First is budget development, second is the budget reallocation, and third is the actual budget representation. If you don't have the budget book, I have some extra.
Page two shows you the derivation of our budget. The starting point last year, the 1996-97 base budget, there was $26,699,500; that was after a permanent budget cut from the state of $423,200. That gave us our starting point. From that point on, we had two temporary budget reductions. One was related to institutional priorities of $79,500. The other was directly related to a reduction from not meeting our tuition target, and a potential mid-year correction. Those two items together total $513,000 so those were pulled right off the top, and that gave us our actual 1996-97 working phase. That's really our starting point for the '97-'98 budget. From that point what we have done first is to restore the Institutional Priorities the $79,500 so each area that had made a slight cut had that returned
The major change was the restoration to Academic Affairs of $208,600. That was their share of the enrollment shortage. That's in a special fund for classroom reserves to fund additional classes. So based on that point that gives us a proposed '97-'98 base budget of $26,474,000 which represents a total increase from our current working budget of $288,100. Now that's still $24,900 below where we started last year; that amount can be made up if we achieve our full tuition target 4500 FTE. There is still some room there.
The second point is the budget reallocation, there are four reallocations listed. The first is Institutional Research moving from the President's Office to Academic Affairs. The second is Funding the Multicultural Affairs Office in Student Affairs. The third is Trademarks and Licensure funded in the Development Office, and the fourth is additional funding for publications in the Development Office.
Now that we've gone through all this, we have a proposed '97-'98 budget. We still don't know what the state is going to do. We are anticipating a slight reduction in state funding. We won't know the exact amount until July... August... September? Who knows? What we have to keep in mind is a 1% reduction in state funding equals about $270,000, 2% is about $540,000. This budget is put together anticipating a state cut. We can handle both sized cuts. What we'll be looking for to balance our budget is an anticipated carryover from this year ('97-'98), plus meeting our fall tuition target of 4500 FTE. That means we don't have to cut ourselves further because we didn't generate the revenue that we were supposed to. We may have to look at other revenue sources, so even if there is some state reduction we will not come back and cut this budget any further. This budget is set, if you ask me today if every i is dotted and every t crossed, it's not. There are lots of variables that can take place, but the type of things like the IFR buyout, dorm devolution, those types of things are giving us more and more flexibility to deal with state variations in funds. We can manage it we can work it out. That's a quick summary of the budget; I'll take any questions.
Joe Straight: Wasn't one of the reasons that the state taxed our IFR accounts was that they came through and did an audit, and we now have to do out own audits of those funds?
Tracy Bennett: The state treated IFR's like any other state funds. Anybody that has an IFR account, you know there is really three pieces to it, the administrative charge of 5.93%, the M&O charge of 9.58% and then whatever fringe benefits you are assessed. There was some basis in fact of the administrative charge. I was on the committee that reviewed that and looked at the system to see what does that cost to administer IFR's. There is some basis in fact that it was a reasonable number. When it came to the M&O number that 9.58%, how was that number arrived at? There was no basis in fact. It was a hole that SUNY had to plug; they took a number multiplied and said this is what we'll charge. This is where the campuses that had the IFR accounts were hit disproportionately because they taxed IFR's. Campuses that didn't have IFR's basically didn't experience a budget cut, but they didn't help the problem. So the IFR buyout I think is going to help Fredonia because we've developed a lot of IFR accounts. I think when the actual distribution of the total amount in the IFR buyout is distributed to all campuses, based on allocation, not based on IFR activity, we will do OK. Some campuses have done very little with IFR's; Stony Brook and Cornell are going to get more of a cut. I think Fredonia is going to come out OK.
All of the contractual provisions, CSEA lump sums, CSEA, UUP, all of those will be added later, but they are not in the space, those are always added later.
Jon Kraus: Do you anticipate us meeting the 4500 FTE's?.
Tracy Bennett: I don't know if I'm the right person to answer that, but I've heard some very positive things about it. I'm optimistic about it.
President Hefner: We're still running 4% ahead on freshman applicants for next year and we continue to remain ahead of last year, so I think we are going to do a little better with the Freshman applicants. We are looking to put a Masters degree in Education back on line through the regular academic year. That was a major loss to us this year. That will be back in place for next year. Right now we're slightly ahead in terms of the number of transfer students. That's probably going to be about a wash, but it looks quite likely that we're going to come in pretty close to 4500 FTE. There are always contingencies, and it will depend on a show up rate. If the show up rate is the same percentage as last year, we're just fine, if the show up rate dropped considerably well, then we're going to scramble.
Jon Kraus: Since the Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs search committee isn't going through any public process, I was wondering if there is any information on the kinds of criteria which you had spelled out which is going to be guide you through the selection.
President Hefner: I'm developing specificcriteria that I'm going to be giving to the selection committee next week. I just haven't written them out yet, so I won't try to rattle them off the top of my head. But it will not be secretive, and I will make that public.
3. Jane Romal (Chair's Report):
You all read the little notice about the length of the meeting I put in there last time. I was under a misconception that we had to be out of here by 5:00. Thank you to those who spoke to me and wanted to discuss important issues. We will stay until 5:30 if necessary. I hope you all arranged your lives to stay that long. A quorum is a half plus one of forty people, the voting members. So we can't do anything without at least 21 members present.
The second thing is that the Administrative Review Committee has set up the meetings. You probably saw the announcement, one is today at 5:30 in 180 Fenton, the second is tomorrow in the Williams Center at 7:00 p.m., and the third is Wednesday at 2:00. Please try to attend one of those at least.
Vivian Conover has resigned. She gave me something to read, but I didn't realize I was supposed to read it here, so you'll have to hear it next month.
The last thing is the questionnaire on the Committees.
[A draft was distributed.] If you were at the meeting on February 14th, the whole campus wide committee, I dropped something in the basket and said we were going to try to revamp the committees. We're not going to go over every one of these questions, but if you had something general to say about it, you should feel free to discuss it now. If you have specific things like how you would like questions worded, then you should write them down and turn them in. That would save time. Any questions or comments? (none)
One last thing, we now have formal student members. They are listed at the bottom of the attendance sheet. The man we know as Pablo is the President of the Student Association, and he is here with the students Patrick Callin and Joe Perry. We're very glad to have you here officially.
Jefferson Westwood (Vice Chair Report):
No report. Did Vivian Conover just resign from Faculty Council?
Jane Romal: No she resigned from the Administrative Review Committee.
4. Steve Rees (Governance Committee Report):
Was not in attendance.
5. Joseph Straight (Academic Affairs Report):
We have a number of items that carried over from last month's meeting. We've had some opportunity to discuss them. I've passed around a report for you this month to add two additional items.
One of them is a new major in communication disorders and sciences that has been proposed by the speech pathology and audiology department. That was approved by Academic Affairs, but I don't have the details to give to you now. I would just like you to put that in your mind that that will be coming up next month. I will make sure that we get the material to you for the agenda, so that can go out with the agenda for next months meeting.
Is there any further discussion on the new minor in applied mathematics?
The new minor in applied mathematics was approved unanimously.
Joseph Straight: The next one is for a new minor in athletic coaching. This is for the education department. Is there further discussion of that minor?
The minor in athletic coaching was approved unanimously.
Joseph Straight: The new major in media arts, any questions on that?
Joe Perry: May I inquire as to whether all the problems and/or inquiries from this Council at last meeting were solved in the intervening weeks?
Joseph Straight: The committee continues work on the program. John Hughson, can you give us an update?
John Hughson: We sent an overview of the program to the library. We also put some information on a web page regarding syllabi. Since the last meeting we have had some communications. One from Michael Grady suggesting that we add CS105 (Vision Basic) and we add some programming course either within the core or, and he didn't mention this, track specific. And it might not be in all the tracks that we offer.
Joe Chilberg: I did go to the library and as of today they do not have any information regarding the curriculum. I was able to go to the web page, and I wanted to verify, I was told verbally that the course "Sight, Sound and Motion tagged as a CM communication course was actually going to be a MM course a Multimedia course. But on the web page, it had it as a CM course. My concern of course as one of the managers of the curriculum in Communication is that if it's going to be a CM course that we have some review process in our department as part of this larger process. Can anybody verify for me from that committee what it will be, and if necessary to correct the print in the web page.
John Hughson: Sorry there was an error on the information you looked at. As you know, I, as a representative of the committee, did come to the communications department last semester. We went through the entire program and did get a lot of encouragement from your colleagues in the communications department, all very positive. You are correct, it was an error on my part instead of CM256 Sight Sound and Motion, it should be MM256 Sight Sound and Motion.
Joe Chilberg: I guess the last concern I have as one of the at-large members of the curriculum management committee, I didn't notice course descriptions for a number of courses. I believe the top three core courses had descriptions. I believe the one course regarding looking at protocols, that was described and there was some information on it, but a few of the others had nothing. I guess I'm still concerned in terms of having optimal decisions to have all the relevant information available.
John Hughson: I've become aware of that problem recently, and what I have done is I brought over several copies of the syllabi, and if you want, I can give you one of those right now. I realize it's very short notice, but all of the information you request is in this handout.
Joe Chilberg: I guess if we do get it to the library, let those folks know how to get it to us as well, because somehow there was a disconnect there. I guess based on that, my feelin gs are that it would be nice to have this information before I sit down and consult with my colleagues about the decision. If we go ahead and vote today, I guess I would say we should postpone till we all have the information.
John Hughson: Then you've got to realize that this is a brand new program. Things are developing relatively quickly, and we put things in and out of our model. We don't have the i's dotted and the t's crossed. I think that if you get a chance to look at the syllabi, I think a lot of your concerns will be answered. I think personally that it would be a mistake to put off voting on this degree program right now. I think that we have, at least in terms of responses we're getting from off campus, from Junior colleges, four-year liberal arts colleges and university centers, we have a very strong program. And they react to it very positively. I think that at this time, since we are looking for students to increase our enrollment, we have a very viable program here. If you can trust the people who devised the program and allow us to continue to interact with you and your opinions, we could go ahead and probably make a decision on this in this meeting.
Dick Weist: I'm going to go back to some things that were said last meeting. In particular Minda Rae raised a number of, I think, important questions. When I went through the minutes, it was my impression that many of these were not answered.
For example one of the problems concerns prerequisites. Minda Rae pointed out that there were a number of courses that were hidden from the rather weighty number of hours in the curriculum by way of prerequisites. Now one of the answers was that the people who were teaching these courses have given the OK and waived the prerequisites. I looked over the courses with the prerequisites and tried to evaluate what was being waived. I was rather startled to find that what is being waived is a long list of basic concepts. For example the course in typography, which is part of the Corporate Multimedia program requires Graphic Design II which is a continuation of Graphic Design I which is an introduction to principles and procedures basic to the training of graphics designers. The basics of graphic design are supposedly going to be waived. Now I'm imagining that at least one classroom where the typical student in the classroom has a thorough understanding of graphic design, but those people who are entering from this track are in there cold.
The same argument holds for corporate video, which requires CM357 or permission, CM354 which is Video Field Production, and Video Field Production requires Television Production, and in the description of Television Production what we're talking about is the acquisition of basic skills again. Again, we're going to have, by allowing a waiver of prerequisites, an extremely mixed group of students in the class. The same argument holds for Electronic Composition. I talked to Keith about that, and he tells me that all of this background in music theory is not required for composition. I can only tell you that I'm amazed.
Keith Peterson: I never said that!!
Dick Weist: Well... that was a casual conversation in the home show so I might not have gotten the answer precisely.
Furthermore, in the Music Sound Recording area, Acoustics I and II are required. They require Junior standing or permission. The typical Junior is going to have Physics 230 & 231, Physics 232 and 233 which are calculus- based physics as well as Mathematics 122 & 123. So now when you look at just that one particular tract, you now add up all the hours that accrue to this major, you end up with a hundred and twenty six. You can argue that well one of those Physics courses will be taken in the General College Program, and one of those Math courses will be taken in the General College Program, so then I end up subtracting six and I get down to a possible major with no electives.
Another comment in reply to Minda Rae's questioning, Dr. Ferraro to us that she seems to be indicating this problem with prerequisites is pervasive, and he claims it's not. I claim it is. Not only that it's pervasive but when you are proposing that you are going to waive these prerequisites, what you're waiving is the basic understanding of problems like music theory as it relates to composition, basic production skills as it relates to corporate video, and basic graphic design as it relates to typography. I , for one, am overwhelmed by the problems that you have.
John Hughson: We discussed Graphic Design and the prerequisite for Graphic Design last meeting. It had been changed last semester, the prerequisite for that would be Design I not Graphic Design I and II, so it does fit within the curriculum without any kind of waiver at all.
Paul Bowers: If I may speak to your second point, both of which are about the corporate track. The course Video for Multimedia Arts Majors is specifically designed to be about field production. I teach the course and designed the course in corporate video production, and for the three years that I've been here, and the couple of years that I've taught it, having taught it elsewhere, and having a background as a professional corporate video manager, I designed the course such that many times, students can register from other backgrounds. Corporate video is about teamwork. You need writers. You go from print to video in that course, which means we design brochures, an entire program and campaign which results in video. These students, who are in this track, will benefit from an aesthetic background in several courses, design courses, and other courses that makes them specifically and uniquely qualified, after having taken Multimedia for Video Arts Majors, in my judgment to be in the Corporate Video Production course. What I'm saying is that we have just explained to you that in our judgment and in consultation with each other and after careful hours of discussing design and flow that we do not believe that the prerequisite problem exists in the corporate track. If you'd like to turn your attention for a moment to the Music track please do so.
Keith Peterson: We have, I'm sorry I didn't inform you of this, but we do have some changes in prerequisites for MU440 and 441 that will be in the new catalog. MU440 reads MU122+24 or basic theory training recommended, also similar for MU441.
This was to give students a background in terminology, notation and basic reading skills, basic parameters of music. I feel that it has been no problem, I usually give them an interview if they haven't had this class,and it's really not a prerequisite in a very strict sense. In our program, by the time they take these classes, they will have already taken theory for non-majors which is a perfectly adequate prerequisite. It's built into the program that they will attend these classes. This class will probably come in the third year of the program whereas music theory comes in the first year.
David Kirsner: I spoke with Mike Grady concerning the Physics and Acoustics I course which he teaches, and he was comfortable with the prerequisite of College Physics I and II. I teach the second semester, and of course the prerequisite for the second semester is the first semester. And they changed the prerequisite in the current catalog. It's no longer just junior standing which is ambiguous, is it junior physics standing, or junior sound recording or whatever. So anyway my opinion is that College Physics would be suitable, as a prerequisite and that will be dialed into the major.
Jon Kraus: One of things your web site proposes is that one of the goals of this whole thing is the skills needed to produce this kind of information of the highest quality and value requires a combination of basic and traditional skills of each discipline combined with high skills and knowledge of computer technology.
It seems to me that by changing, actually I thought when I looked at it you had rather strong and healthy prerequisites for these courses, they really looked like tough 300, 400 level courses, and then are you worried that you're losing some of those basics and traditional skills by relinquishing some of these prerequisites. Apparently not.
If you were, another problem that Minda Rae raised had to do with the relationship between the goals of the programs and the courses that are required within the programs. That's another question that was left unanswered. In particular the question was addressed to the courses in acting that were related to the media arts program. It is possible that in rethinking these programs, that you can put more basics into them by eliminating some courses that may not be relevant to them.
Tom Rywick: John addressed the issue of getting this approved without delay. If Council approved this today, what would be the schedule, and when would it get to the state? Do all the i's that need to be dotted and all the t's that need to be crossed, does that need to be done before it gets to somebody's desk in Albany or can you still be in the process?
John Hughson: I hope this proposal will be in Albany by Friday to answer the first part of your question. We got the narrative going and it is 80% done I would say. In regards to dotting i's and crossing t's and taking into consideration what other people have said, I think you can hear from our responses that we are continuing on that.
I think that what Faculty Council has to look at is (1) The answers to the questions you've just given us; (2) the trust that you might want to confer on us, that we're able to operate this program based on our previous experiences and professors here; (3) the realization that no curriculum should really be static, I mean I hope everything is going under some degree of change all the time. Really I hope this process of change and alteration and listening to input, listening to ourselves, see how students do and see how we interact with faculty and how we interact with students will be a continual process of change and alteration. I don't see us coming up with the perfect curriculum and say "OK guys, go get it; this is great." I see this as coming out with a good plan, a good program, and a program that will attract students. We have the facilities here. We have the expertise here; let's just go do it. Let's vote on it and let's get it done.
Tom Rywick: Having listened to everything. I've listened to the presentation about this actually twice, and some of the same types of questions that have been raised last month and here were raised by Academic Affairs. Specific questions about prerequisites and so on. I don't recall that they were necessarily the exact same courses or programs but the same types of things. I do have to say that I have not been uncomfortable with the answers that I've been given about each one of these. When specific things have been raised, it has satisfied me.
I do have a general concern, just philosophically, just about issues of the intensity of these courses. So many hours and so on and so forth, but what I'm trying to say is that after hearing several hours of comments about this program, the issue of trust and trusting the people who are working on this, I have that trust. I've heard them respond to things. It seems to me they've looked at the issues that were raised and have made adjustments or clarifications where needed. Although I may still have some general a little bit of discomfort, I basically agree with what John just said. I think I see a program that I'm going to vote I favor of.
Harry Jacobson? I'm in support of this program also and actually my reservations or concerns about it in a way deal with opposite oncerns from Minda Rae and Dick. I would like to see some way you can actually customize their program to meet their talents and skills. Rather than having to get all these basics. And that's what I'm afraid of, that this program is so full of requirements that there isn't much flexibility, but I think that eventually you will have that come out and be developed. I'm concerned that there aren't enough options for the students to develop their own custom talents and goals.
Michael Grady: I was just wondering if it's been worked out, how are you going to meet these three or four new courses personnel-wise. Are other courses going to be dropped, or has the college committed to extra resources for this program?
John Hughson: There's been a preliminary budget drawn up for the next four years, and the indication is that that budget will be met, it's rather conservative. It's probably in the neighborhood of about ten to fourteen thousand dollars a year.
Michael Grady: Adjuncts will take other courses that will release you to teach these classes?
John Hughson: For the most part.
Minda Rae Amiran: About the existing sound recording program, is there any concern that the Music Sound Production B.F.A. may kill the Sound Recording program. That when we consider adding students, we are actually exchanging them? Given the fact that the current Sound Recording program requires music theory for majors and music history for majors. This program requires music theory and history for non- majors, and the S.R.T. program requires Calculus and Physics, and so on, and this program does not? It sounds a little as if you ara getting into the same field when you finish.
David Kirsner: Good question, in fact that's a question I had in the beginning of this audition period. I announced it at the curriculum meetings that we had people clamoring for this major. In fact it's just the opposite
[of what the question implied]. If anything we're picking up the people who couldn't make the audition. We're turning people from S.R.T. So, in fact, I have a proposal to enlarge that program. We are looking for a different person. It's not the same job; it truly isn't. This media arts major is looking for people to create CD ROM types of interactivity applications, as opposed to the Sound Recording persons who is working very specifically dealing with sound in a variety of media. It's a different training, and it's a different job in a lot of ways.
Minda Rae Amiran: My comment has two points. One is that I really hate having this whole curriculum presented as a matter of trust. I don't think that any of us distrust our colleagues in any way. If we imagine a hypothetical situation in which Faculty Council is offered a pig in a poke and told "trust me," then Faculty Council has no function in regard to approval of new curricula. Of course we do trust one another, but that's not the basis it seems to me on which one argues for a new curriculum. Nor has this committee done so. It has presented some syllabi. It has presented some detailed charts and explanations. My comment has to do with the principle of anybody saying "trust me" as an argument for accepting a new curriculum.
The other comment that I want to make has to do with the sense that I have felt that Faculty Council was pressured to approve a program that had already been approved in the sense that other colleges had been informed. The unusual process of getting support for a new program after it has been presented or while it is being presented to Albany not before it is approved on campus was undertaken. The course-offering bulletin already lists a MM course under a MM category. In other words, we've been proceeding as if Faculty Council had already approved the new major. Requests for more information are being met with "Gee we've got to get this to Albany by Friday." Faculty Council will probably approve this program, and I am not saying that it should not. But I feel that Faculty prerogative is, in regard to curricula, being very much put in question when we are asked to approve a program which has already gone out to others, and which is already in the course offerings bulletin, before we have approved it.
Ron Ambrosetti: I can't speak to the course offering bulletin I'm afraid. There are a new set of guidelines propagated from SUNY central in regard to all letters of intent, and any kind of program proposals.
There are now two stages. This booklet for both undergraduate and graduate level was published May '96, almost a year ago. There are now two phases. Phase number one, long before any kind of local faculty governance or campus kind of Academic Affairs matters are considered, you do now a Program Announcement which involves getting things out. So I'm just trying to clarify that the consultation with all other units, all other campuses have had, by regulation, to take place. Now the second part is that after Faculty Governance approves, we go to SUNY central with the full proposal. So that did have to take place. I would add after nearly four years of dealing with this with Sharon Zablotney in many regards with system correspondence, that this program has elicited some of the strongest responses, the most approbations, we have ever seen. Stony Brook in fact would like to steal it right from under our noses.
Joe Chilberg: One concern, I just did kind of a quick scan of the syllabi handed to me just now. I'm wondering where in the curriculum is, sometimes syllabi miss all the details. There is a lot of technical, craft, the arts of designing, constructing, creating, as this curriculum should emphasize. I came across a little piece that was mentioning other programs working on these kinds of curricula. The issue of critical orientations and critical sociocultural implications, anywhere from the kinds of products that are made through these technologies, as well as larger sociocultural implications within professions, as well as to the larger society of the world, do not seem to be reflected in this academic program. I'm wondering if it's missing or if it's something that is going to hit up, and if so, how strongly and where. I think being in an academic institution we are unlike the Columbia School of Broadcasting or some other technically driven institution, and that we do hold certain sorts of academic concerns in the things that we teach study and applicate. Perhaps someone could help me determine where that is, or if it's not, should it be.
Carl Farraro: Not only are there courses in the general program that students can choose, but there are specifically, and I've had some discussions with my colleague Bob Deming, and other colleagues with regard to sending students to film courses in which analytical, social and political issues are addressed. The media criticism course that I teach is specifically designed to look at these issues. The Sound Sight and Motion course is a critical analytical course.
If you read the syllabi that we did put together, it discusses to some degree, and I admit briefly, and briefly is all we could do with that sort of point. That we should look at a number of critical issues and then apply them to hypothetical projects, and also have speakers in various concerns come in and talk with us. If you look at the people who are listed with regard to the articles, and the textual material that is there, you will see a number of persons who are very sociopolitically and culturally interested. As well as people who look at specifically the dynamics of aesthetics, which of course ties directly back into applications, and implication on societies, people, interpretations and so on.
Bob Deming: Just for the record. The web page has corrected an anomaly about English courses. However one anomaly still exists. It puts in EN281 (Introduction to Film & TV analysis). The problem is that that course will never exist again. It's my course, I'm not teaching it any more. The other two courses, which are listed there, Public Relations, and Intro to Media are one time a year courses. In one case the English Department requires an adjunct to teach it. Which mean that as Chair of the English Department, I am going to be sitting, looking at rosters and I'm going to serving English majors and minors, before I'm going to be serving this audience. In the other case as Chair of Department in direct competition with the director of this program for adjunct funds. Just for the record.
The Media Arts Program was approved by a vote of 17 to 7.
Joseph Straight: The next proposal is to have A+ grading. The A+ grade would simply be to recognize outstanding or exceptional performance in a course. It would carry no additional quality points above the 4.0. It would still be worth 4.0 quality points.
Bob Klausen: I'm curious to hear whether the students think having an A+ grade without any credit on their transcript really makes a difference to them.
Pablo Fanjul: I have never yet been on a job interview, but I have heard that the grades are never really ever looked at. So, it would be great for my mother.
[laughter] Maybe like a mention at graduation, for people with a certain number of A+'s.
Joseph Straight: That's a good point, something we could look at later on if this were approved. Right now our criteria for graduation and honors are strictly grade point average based. It's 3.8 and above is summa cum laude. So we might want to go back and look at that even though we are not counting the A+ grade. We should look at students who are maybe close to the cutoff and see whether they have some A+'s and maybe make a recommendation then.
Dick Weist: I'm not really strong one way or the other on this. I use A+ for my classes so my students already know if they have an A+ so it may be good for mothers, so they get to see as well as I see that they have an A+. I guess what I'm concerned about is that this is a prelude to grade inflation. I would want to hear what the real motivation is for these A+'s. At least I would like it in the minutes that I'm worried about grade inflation, and maybe a number of my colleagues are worried about it. What it the motivation?
Joseph Straight: Motivation is simply to recognize the truly exceptional student. I've got a student in a class this semester. I will typically give out of 25 students one or two A's in this class. It's sort of a difficult class. These students are right at the A-/A cutoff typically, but I give them the A. This student will probably come in with more than the possible total number of points. The reason being that she has done some extra credit assignments, and she has done perfect on all the test and quizzes. She'll get more than 400 out of 400 points where the other students are right at 370 or maybe a little less than 370. I would really just like to be able to reward her with that designation of an A+ grade.
Kevin Michki: I'm just concerned, along these same lines, about when another institution looks at the student's transcript and sees this A+ grade. How many other institutions have a grading policy like that? I'm wondering how a prospective school or employer would look at this. Would they look at it as grade inflation, or would they look at it as a valid... ? If enough schools have a grading policy like that it might make sense but I'm wondering if that's really going to make any difference or not, in the sense of students getting into graduate school and things like that.
Joe Straight: Certainly a minority. I wouldn't say it's very rare. It's probably rare at this point that schools have an A+. Of those that have an A+ some have extra credit, 4.3 or something, they actually award a higher GPA. The student could get more than a 4.0 as far as GPA is concerned. There are some that do it, not a large number. Right now the A+ would just be a 4.0
Tom Ryrick: The fear of grade inflation just isn't there for me. If we're talking about some A's becoming A+'s there would of course be no change here. I just don't see it working its way down. I don't really see that more A-'s would become A's more B+'s become A-'s. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm missing something there but I really just didn't see that happening. My intention and the reason I like this is I mean it's kind of like what Pablo said, it's just the idea of just an extra little bit of recognition for really superior performance. I was thinking about it. Three students in over twenty-seven years in my statistics classes who, whatever I would do, just would refuse to get less than a hundred on an exam. That's just three people, but I'd like to have given those three out of the many hundreds an A+, rather than just the three dozen perhaps that I've given an A to. Just to indicate that exceptional performance.
George Browder: If we're going to worry about grade inflation, I think we're going to worry about what's already here, and try to turn the A back into a superior grade rather than an average grade.
Dick Weist: I'm a little worried that as soon as these A+'s start to hit the books that the students are not here next year arguing that they want those A+'s to count toward grade point average. Then I'm hoping all those who vote in favor of this will vote opposed to the student plea.
Chair Romal: Do you want to amend the motion?
Nicole Regman (graduate rep):
I just wanted to say that I'm not opposed necessarily to an A+ grade. I'm afraid that it takes away from the A that you get. You strive for the A. The A's supposed to be the highest that you can get. The A+ sort of takes away from it a little unnecessarily because you're not getting the additional points, and I guarantee you that if the students find out they're getting A+'s but it's still the same as a 4.0 you're going to hear it from the students.
Jon Kraus: I have the same fears that Dick has. I think that over time, some of you indeed may give it to one or two people every twenty years, but I guarantee you that you will start to see a lot of A+'s.
Patrick Callan: If the concern is grade inflation, maybe the stipulation should be included that this will not be ever considered 4.3 before we pass this.
Jon Kraus: I would add to the amendment: with the understanding that there at no time be additional points added above the 4.0.
The amendment was seconded and approved by a vote of 14 to 7, with one abstention.
The main motion for the addition of an A+ grade was defeated by a majority vote.
Jon Kraus: This is a proposal to drop the X grade at mid semester and replace it with S and U. S would indicate satisfactory performance, and U would indicate unsatisfactory performance but not necessarily failing. Of coarse you would still have available to you the A, B, C, D, E grades as well.
Harry Jacobson: There is a difference between an X and an S and U, and I'd like to keep that option.
Dick Weist: The only reason I give anything other than a grade for mid-semester is because I have no way of evaluating the student. They were sick; they didn't take an exam, or such a thing. So I have a really good reason to want to have X's and absolutely no reason to want to have S and U.
Pablo Fanjul: If we were to pass this, I would like to at least strongly encourage faculty to give letter grades.
Vice Chair Westwood: What is the difference between putting an X and just leaving it blank on your grading sheets?
Joe Straight: Well in some cases some people didn't turn it in when it's a blank, and with an X you at least know the professor turned it in.
Carl Ferraro: One thing that is currently happening to me is when I see an X, and I hand the student their mid-semester grades, it compels me to inquire: How are you doing in this class? What is going on? Have you taken any quizzes? If I saw an S. I might just overlook it.
Michael Grady: After three or four years, we may end up having our advisees show up with a lot of S's and no letter grades at all, because it is obviously easier to calculate an S than a letter grade.
Karen: I'd just like to point out that there are courses where indeed an S or U is appropriate. Immediately, in my own department, I can think of creative writing courses where it's not appropriate to give a midterm grade, and where work is not graded, but work is read every single week, and it is assessed every single week, and you could appropriately give an S or a U.
Joe Chilberg: I guess I see that S and U, but when that X is gone, I don't have the indication that things aren't complete for legitimate reasons. Now, I can see the S there, and that's satisfactory, but I don't want some student thinking that they don't have to see me about the makeup quiz, or "Gee, things are cool now, because I got an S." We limit the kinds of messages we can indicate by eliminating the X.
The proposal to drop the X grade and replace it with S and U is defeated by a majority vote.
6. Jon Kraus (Planing & Budget):
Planning and Budget had a public hearing on the vision statement. Thousands and thousands of people showed up in this very room. We are making some changes to it. I can't say that everybody will be satisfied with it.
7. Joan Burke (Professional Service):
We have received no charge from Faculty Council since April 1996, and I have no report.
8. Mike Dimitri: The last meeting we did have did not involve selecting a chair, but I hope before the end of the semester to announce our chair. The Student Affairs committee did meet with a task force that is looking at course availability for students. They met with approximately six students. Students expressed their concerns, perceptions, offered some suggestions that were recorded and used by the task force. I think the meeting went very, very well.
Tom Rywick (GCP Committee):
I'd just like to say that the GCP committee is in an information-gathering mode right now. We've begun to contact alumni regarding opinions about their General College experience. We've noted in campus reports last week and in a notice that's going out to everyone this week, the committee will be holding general campus- wide meetings next Wednesday and Thursday of the following week the 23rd and the 24th in the Campus Center to just listen to people's comments and suggestions regarding the GCP and any possible need for revision.
Chair Romal: Are there any comments on the motion to have a common meeting time?
Tom Ryrick: Is the idea here of a common meeting time that could be used for departmental meetings as well as different governmental committee meetings?
Joe Chilberg: Certainly that will be one of the ways to use that time. I think you have to do that to not create complications in departments. The idea of opening up and creating common times to visit with candidates, those of us who are maybe advising students, organizations and clubs. It provides a time when you can get together with those folks, instead of having to come late at night.
Tom Ryrick: I'm just not sure if it's going to help with my problems. I'm always running into scheduling conflicts over department meetings,and committee meetings, and they can't be at the same time. If this means those kinds of meetings will be at this specific time it will be even more difficult to schedule other times for the conflicting meetings.
Vice Chair Westwood: I like the idea of having a time that predictably does not have classes taking place, so that things like convocation could happen their without canceling classes, so that we could have large campus wide events.
We had a day of caring a year ago after the cross burning; so things like that can happen. Then we could spend more time with community building, which a lot of people complain about.
I would not want it to be used for regular routine departmental or governance meetings. This time ought to be used productively. I do believe they have something like this at Buffalo State, and just how they utilize the time I'm not quite sure. I wouldn't want to see the President locked into having to do it just that way. I think it's definitely worth exploring; maybe it could be referred to a task force or committee.
Joe Straight: The calendar subcommittee of Academic Affairs might be a good place to send this. They are not doing anything at the present time.
Vice Chair Westwood: I move that the motion be referred to the Calendar Sub-committee of Academic Affairs.
The motion that the resolution on a common meeting time be referred to the Calendar Sub-Committee of Academic Affairs was seconded and passed unanimously.
Chair Romal: Someone brought me the notice from Vivian it says:
My resignation from the Administrative Review Committee was effective Monday April 7th. Apparently unresolvable differences of opinion with the committee chair was the main impetus. Energy needed elsewhere fortified it.
9. There was no new business.
10. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:28pm.
Attendance:
Professional Staff / Management Confidential:
[x] Sylvia Clarke
[ ] Fabrizio Daloisio
[x] Susan Maloney
[ ] William Ortega
[x] Martha Smith
[x] Charlene Wiles
[E] James Jackson
[x] Lisa Marrano
[x] Kevin Michki
[x] Patrick Rocheleau
[x] Terry Tzitzis
Arts, Education, and Humanities:
[x] Candice Brown
[x] Janet Fairbairn
[x] Harry Jacobson
[x] Rose Klassen
[x] David Ludlam
[ ] Stephen Rees
[x] Robert Deming
[x] Carl Farraro
[x] Robert Klassen
[ ] Kenneth Lucey
[x] Lawrence Maheady
[x] George Sebouhian
Natural and Social Sciences:
[E] Seyed-Mahmoud Agazadeh
[x] George Browder
[x] Michael Grady
[x] Gary Lash
[x] Greg Prechtl
[x] Amin Sarkar
[x] Richard Weist
[x] Nancy Boynton
[x] Nancy Gee
[x] Jon Kraus
[ ] Kenneth Mantai
[x] Thomas Rywick
[x] Brenda Joyce Stephens
[ ] Deborah Welch
Ex. Officio Member:
[E] Julius Adams (Faculty Senator)
[x] Tracy Bennett (Interim VP, Admin.)
[x] Michael Dimitri (VP, Student Affairs)
[x] Dennis Hefner (President)
[ ] Julie Dennis (Council Secretary)
[ ] Jane Romal (Chair, Faculty Council)
[x] Ron Ambrosetti (Associate Dean of the Faculty)
[x] Jean Malinoski (VP, Development)
[x] Greg Harper (Associate Dean, Faculty)
[E] David Hess (VP, Academic Affairs)
[E] Stephen E. Rees (Chair, Gov. Committee)
[x] Sharon Zablotney (Dean of the Faculty)
[x] Jefferson Westwood (Vice Chair, FC)
Student Members
[x] Pablo Gion-Fanjul (SA Pres.)
[x] Patrick Callan (SA Rep.)
[x] Joe Perry (SA Rep.)
Guests:
John Hughson
Tom Loughlin
Keith Peterson
Dave Kerzer
Ted Schwalbe
Joseph Straight
Joan Burke
Paul Bowers
Minda Rae Amiran
Kalin Sablo
Jacky Swansinger