Minutes of the meeting of November 10th 1997
(There were problems with the tape, and some comments were not audible. Audible comments are transcribed below.)
Chairperson Jane Romal called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM.
1. A quorum was present. The Agenda was approved unanimously.
2. Dick Weist: One of the things that was left out of the minutes was near the end of the meeting I made a motion that the language of the four-year guarantee come back to Faculty Council. After making that somebody commented that they were concerned that that might mean that the current language be jeopardized as that's what's being used right now.
What concerns me is my role here on the Faculty Council. If I'm here as a member of a group that is designed to consult with the President or advise the President. For instance in the case of the four-year guarantee there is some concern that the Council not even consider language because we're already going ahead with the four-year guarantee. I guess maybe it's a question to the President, does the President see this as an advisory board?
President Hefner: I certainly do see it as an advisory board.
Dick Weist: It seems to me that it's OK if the President wants to go ahead with a plan like the four-year guarantee. I think the President could go ahead and do that without ever bringing it to the Faculty Council at all. If our input is being sought, then I think it should be brought to the Council at an earlier stage in the process. Not after it has already gone into effect. And not at a point where people are even concerned that the language might be changed. If it's gone into effect, and they don't want any details changed, what's the point of bringing it to this group at all? Had they rejected it you already had it in place. My point is that if this body is going to be useful as an advising body, then matters like this should come to this body ahead of time.
Chair Romal: You can have a motion on that if you want.
Bob Deming: Either the President seeks our advice in advance of policy-making or not. I don't think we can make a motion that requires it.
Nan Bowser: It was my understanding this process was already in effect. It was certain that we would implement it beginning of this semester but wanted to see suggestions and will continue to as the process goes on to see what changes should be made. I don't think any recommendations are things that would be changed immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The minutes of October 13, 1997 were approved as corrected.
3. President's Report (Dr. Dennis Hefner):
We had a meeting of all of the University College Presidents and Chancellors. We did talk a bit about the admission delineation effort that's going on at the system level. It seems to be going at an ever- slower pace. I don't believe it will have much impact on the campuses; it's not a major issue.
This is a copy of the new Resource Allocation Model. We have obtained an unofficial copy. It is not a model that warms my heart. I do not think that it is a model worthy of the SUNY system. We compared this model to the benchmarking model; the benchmarking model is considerably more sophisticated than this model. It's not only simplistic it's just downright simple. With a system such as this, smaller campuses will suffer serious consequences.
There will be a series of meetings that will be coming up later this month. In fact, the Aademic Vice Presidents and the Administrative Vice-Presidents will meet on the seventeenth of this month to discuss the RAM model. The Presidents are coming back together the following week, the twenty-fourth, we have the chancellor coming in for the RAM model. This is something we will want to keep our eyes on. It is not a very useful approach.
We also, at the Presidents' meeting, talked about priorities for the upcoming legislative sessions. The system has yet to put together any priorities for the legislative session. During the meetings, we had a number of possibilities that were suggested. One I know I was very interested in seeing the system go after. It was an overall technology initiative where we would be asking for money both for equipment and for personnel. It would be a system-wide initiative to the campuses.
I just wanted to report, there will be a series of meetings to talk about the personnel process here on the campus. You may have seen the memo that went out. We have decided not to change any policies, this is merely to clarify what exists within the policy, just to make sure we're all on the same page. I've already had a chance to meet with the Vice Presidents and Deans. I'm meeting with the Chairs, I believe next week and the senior faculty after that.
We have made a list that that the Senate sent to the Governor and we've made the construction fund list. This is for the Dod's Hall swimming pool and for the design money for Mason Hall. Those have come in from three directions. It's now made the Governor's office. The governor has four hundred and twenty-seven million dollars that he can use and he has yet to release it. We are hoping that he will release the money, and our hope is that those two projects will in fact be on the list.
Just a final update, the Task Force on Violence and Alcohol has been formed jointly with the Fredonia school district, and also with the Village of Fredonia. It has been meeting and they have come out with some recommendations.
Before I give up the floor, I just wanted to mention just a couple of really nice highlights. If you haven't bought your ticket yet for "I hate Hamlet", I went this weekend and it's terrific. Go see it. I was impressed with the sword work. It was really really good. Also I got a call this afternoon. Just to let you know that our soccer team did make it to the NCAA tournament. They will be playing this Saturday and Sunday.
With that I did want to mention that Len Falk had one or two announcements.
Len Falk: I had some handouts I hope you picked up. Part of the criteria for allocation of money for SUNY will be based on performance indicators. I understand now that originally that was to be if you did a good job, we'll have an extra amount of money. Now, I understand that we will get the same budget and that 5% will be allocated in this way.
This is the first draft that I received. You might notice the second page, this is not for general distribution, so this will not go out to the entire campus. But in the spirit of consulation, I give it to you and say, "We need your help." The committee now has a hundred and fifty indicators of performance, and as you can see they are very, very general, and many of them take multiple measurements. The question is, are these the important measurements, and can they measure the quality of a school? I would say take a look at it; we'd appreciate any comments or advice. The Academic Vice Presidents have been asked to provide input back to the committee.
There are Internet courses coordinated across the campuses by SUNY, and I wanted you to know that the era of Internet courses is upon us. Just to give you a sense, two years ago we had two or three courses on the Internet. As of spring ninety-eight, there are now a hundred courses and a thousand students. So overnight there has been the development of a lot of Internet courses.
We are not going to have a SUNY system Internet University. Still, basically courses are approved by individual campuses. They are in a position of marketing and basically organizing and assisting campuses in development. There is obviously a lot of academic questions and policy that needs to be made. The atmosphere of Internet courses is that you can explore them throughout the world.
Phoenix University now has the largest number of students in the country. Forty thousand students, most of these are online courses. SUNY is trying to develop a system that will provide high quality courses and programs that will be responsible for academic quality and so forth. This is the process that's here now. We've had a proposal in which SUNY will be supporting campuses who prepare Internet programs, particularly in computer science courses. They provide money, release time, and a computer to those who are designing on-line courses.
Last is a handout on travel expense money for students. We have had several requests from students who were attending a conference and needed financial assistance to got to the conference. What we decided to do is to create an account in a way that everybody could access it, and we would limit the moneys available. We put in $6000 for the remainder of this year. The application process will be through Chairs and through Deans. It will be first-come first-served in terms of the use of this money. Secondly, I don't have procedures but we are also going to put $6000 in for faculty to support and accompany students in these travels. Any questions?
Michael Grady: Are those Internet courses different from regular video courses that are given through distance learning?
Len Fauk: Yes, distance learning requires students to be in a classroom at the same time. Internet courses mean that this is totally on-line.
Ken Lucey: About a year ago Dean Zablotney informed the chairs that the RAM model was going to be implemented, and this would mean about a 7% cut for us. My question is how much time do we have?
President Hefner: Implemented it's about a 3% cut, so they've obviously changed the numbers. I'd say that we have a couple of months. Purchase School would receive almost a 30% reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
George Sebouhian: (inquired about New Paltz)
President Hefner: There was a conference held at New Paltz, and there was a particular trustee who did not like this conference and the content of this conference. So she is taking off after the President of the College. And I don't think that there is any President who supports anything other than academic freedom. One of the reasons why we have colleges and universities is so that we can have discussions about virtually any topic.
Michael Grady: Most universities that expect to have positions will advertise saying that this position is expected in this area, just to get the candidate pool. So that when the retirement actually does come through the folders are all there. In this case, you'll never be able to replace a retirement without waiting an entire year.
President Hefner: If the retirement comes in soon enough, then it can go out. There are two schools of thought. There's one school that says go ahead and put the advertisements out and build a pool and manipulate the pool as you want. The second one says that if you keep putting advertisements out and it turns out you don't get retirements and you don't recruit people, pretty soon word get around that the ads are not real, and that could hurt your recruiting.
Joe Straight: There might be some compromise position possible where the college says that in our best estimation, this position will be available.
Chair Romal: Peter Sinden is supposed to report and I told him that as soon as he arrived we would let him give his report for the Search Committee for the VP of Academic Affairs.
Peter Sinden: The original ad stated we would begin screening October 20th. We have the number of applications down to a smaller number. We are calling people from the previous campuses of the applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We are putting together an evaluation form for circulation of this campus. We are trying to get candidates in between Thanksgiving and finals. Realistically, I think we may not be able to see all that we want to see in that particular period.
One of the things that we wanted to do was to have the ad published in three journals that communicate to specific affirmative action audiences; females, African Americans and Hispanics. This was not done, and it isn't being done because our information about the original pool of people who did in fact apply originally was very diverse in terms of these particular groups. We know that because of the cards that were returned.
In terms of the consequences of our solicitations and our review, and the way vitas have circulated among us collectively. One of the most pleasant things within our committee I think so far is how quickly a consensus is formed.
We have really good candidates, and it's going to be difficult. Responses to our questions, and so on will help us immensely.
I will entertain questions, but I will not entertain questions about specific applicants or the nature of applications.
4. Chair Romal (Chairperson's Report):
You've all seen the nominations for the search committee. I'd like to entertain a motion that we vote in favor of the Search Committee for the VP of Development and College Relations.
Dick Weist: Second.
George Browder: (inquired about the rationale for the makeup of the search committee) Does CSEA really want a representative on every search committee?
President Hefner: I would just say that it seems like the Development Office and University Relations does deal with an a lot of different parts of the campus ,so as a result I sat down with the executive committee. We had talked about trying to have a representative from each of those particular areas, a vice-presidential representative, and to have a student be involved.
Chair Romal: Thomas Becker is on there because we wanted somebody familiar with obtaining major gifts, and we were very pleased that he said he would do it.
President Hefner: He's the Vice President for development at the Chautauqua Institution. Joe Dunst who is on the College Council had recommended him and said he was a wonderful person to work with, and everybody that I've talked to has given very high marks. I spoke with him on the phone and he did say that he would be willing to serve on this committee.
The motion to approve the search committee was passed unanimously.
A motion to delay the report on the Convocation Committee until the December meeting and change the agenda removing item 4b was passed unanimously.
Chair Romal: The guest Ann McCarron Burns was going to come and talk about the drinking problem and the task force, but Mayor Frank Fagano is going to make an announcement of the results of the task force tomorrow. So she didn't want to preempt him. So once they put the mechanism into effect, she'll come next month and address the drinking problem on this campus.
6. Vice Chairperson Jelski had no report.
7. Moj Seyedian (Faculty Senator's Report):
I think we're going to have a reserve...
Chair Romal: Yes, I opened a reserve at the library, and we're putting things like that in it, so if you want to go over there and look at it, it's there.
Moj Seyedian: The other item that I have is that we are not represented in the Senate in terms of non-senator participants. SUNY Fredonia currently is the only college that has no non-senator participants in any of its committees. So I urge you and the whole campus community, both faculty and staff to consider becoming a part of this Senate. They can contact me for information. Travel expenses are paid by the Senate.
One final comment is that I will be out of the country for one month and during that time Joe Childberg from Communications is our alternate senator.
Chair Romal: We looked it up in the by-laws and if the Chancellor doesn't appoint these Chancellor's committees, then Faculty Council is supposed to. So I would like a motion that all of these people be appointed to these committees. They've all agreed to serve.
The committees for the Chancellor's awards were appointed by a unanimous vote.
8a. Vince Courtney (Governance):
I'll try to be brief, I got the final segment of the census. Professional and Management Confidential employees' full time equivalents are 127.38, so next year's Faculty Council will be 13 seats PMC, 12 Arts and Humanities and 12 NSSPS. Faculty Council elections are coming along on track. We're doing the call for nominations very soon. It looks like we have a good healthy number from the preference poll, but we will do a call for nominations after I get those permissions.
The committee will review the Faculty Council bylaws, we are concerned with three particular areas right now. One is including the new divisional structure in the by-laws. The other is trying to clarify at what level and the makeup of search committees. The third is student representation. Apparently, the Student Association Constitution and our by-laws are in conflict as to the number of students who are supposed to be appointed to Faculty Council by the Student Association.
Any other issues or problems with the by-laws, please send me email or write a note to me or anyone on Governance. We will be meeting on these issues in December.
8b. Joseph Straight (Academic Affairs):
I have something to pass out while Mac is doing his report on the Calendar Sub-Committee.
Mac Nelson: This isn't really a report. I am here simply to remind you that we will have some talk about those issues at the December meeting. To answer any questions you may have about what we've given you and to remind you that we have two questions of you, which are near the top of the first page. One, is about "redefined days", and one is about the length of spring vacation. We don't want answers to those today. I wanted to bring them to your attention and we'll talk about them in the meeting in December. If you need copies of this, I have extra copies. What we're asking you to do is think about these things and talk to your colleagues and students as well and come back ready to discuss these various issues in December.
Ken Lucey: Do you think that at any point in the future it would be realistic to have a SUNY-wide calendar?
Mac Nelson: It's probably not a bad idea, but no one has ever pushed it.
Ken Lucey: Because right now I'm teaching a course for students from three different colleges with three different calendars. It's horrible!
Joseph Straight: I have a few items to bring to your attention this month. The first one is a proposed minor in legal studies, and this went out with the agenda. The Academic Affairs Committee reviewed this and recommend it for approval.
Justin Farrell: Are all the courses in the minor currently offered at the college?
Joseph Straight: They're all currently offered.
(Question about listing prerequisites) I don't remember exactly but I think we looked at some of them and felt that the number of hours required here to be 21 so that even if there were three or six additional hours required it would not make the number of hours excessive.
George Browder: Should all the prerequisites be listed?
Joseph Straight: We prefer that they are listed that way, yes.
Chair Romal: Well some of the prerequisites are all the same, like PS120 for all of those PS courses, and in the case of that Business Law II, you have to have Business Law I which is listed there.
Jon Kraus: It would be useful to just list the prerequisites especially since for all the PS courses it is just PS120.
Joseph Straight: We try to have some uniformity in the way those things are presented.
Carl Ferraro: It makes it so much easier for advising as well.
President Hefner: Is there any reason why you wouldn't want to put PS120 into this program? Just add it in, because that seems to be the only course that would need to be added, so that all the prerequisites are in here and listed.
Ken Lucey: I was just noticing here PL362 (Philosophy of Law). Generally, the Philosophy department doesn't list a specific prerequisite for their 300 level courses, but wouldn't encourage the student as his first philosophy course to take a 300 level. You'd want at least an introduction course.
I also see several sociology 300 level courses. I'd be very surprised if one could take a sociology 300 level course without Intro. to Sociology first. Given the diverse nature of the courses here, doesn't the student really have to take quite a large number of introductory courses to be ready to take the upper division courses to do this minor?
Joe Straight: For example if you look at PS370 and PS371 in the catalog. The prerequisite listed is PS120 or PS276 or permission of department. So I believe it's when we give into these phrases like permission of department, sometimes they've chosen not to put those lower level courses down there, recognizing that students with a proper background through other certain combinations of courses could be successful.
Joyce Stephens: I coordinated the criminal justice minor. In fact, you do have to take upper-level courses in the departments, but no we do not waive the prerequisites. In fact, they take those courses for their GCP requirements. They are taking introduction to psychology, introduction to political science. But I don't think they should be waived.
An amendment was made to the motion that PS120 be included in the description of the Criminal Justice minor passed by a majority vote.
The proposed minor in legal studies as amended was approved by a unanimous vote.
Joseph Straight: The second issue is one that did not arrive with your agenda, so if you want to delay this until December we can, although it's a relatively simple issue to understand. This concerns students who are readmitted to the college under the readmission petition. This issue was brought to us by Dean Rywick. When students are readmitted to the college they have two options:
In one option they are allowed to keep the GPA that they had and I suppose if it's relatively close to 2.0, then they decide well I'll keep that GPA and hope that as I return to Fredonia my first semester I'll be able to do well and raise my GPA to 2.0. In that way they essentially keep all of the credit hours that they've earned before the time they were required to withdrawal.
The second option is to come in under what's called the readmission petition and with that you are able to start over as far as your GPA is concerned. Your slate is wiped clean as far as your GPA is concerned. The down side of that is with readmission petition you lose any D grades that you have on the transcript. Of course, if a student is far below 2.0 in terms of their previous work at Fredonia, that really is the only option they have because they would not be able to easily get back above 2.0.
The other thing you have to keep in mind is that all students, in fact, when they are required to withdraw, at least a semester must elapse before the time they are readmitted. Most students use that as an opportunity to take courses at a community college and transfer those hours to Fredonia.
What we're proposing only affects the students who are readmitted to the college under the readmission petition. Only those who decide to come in with a clean slate as far as the GPA is concerned and lose all and any D grades that they have. What we're proposing is that they be required to complete at least forty-five additional credit hours of course work at the college of Fredonia, prior to graduation and after readmission. This would be a change from the current policy which requires sixty hours of additional credit.
I guess the argument was that we thought we should treat these students no worse than we our external transfer students. A transfer student can come in from a community college with seventy-five hours and only be required to have an additional forty-five hours at Fredonia.
George Browder: I don't agree with the argument for treating them like transfer students, since these are students who have already had serious problems.
Joe Straight: The hours that we're keeping are only the hours that are C- or better. And from community colleges we accept D's.
Tom Rywick: My argument is not really to make it equivalent to how we treat transfers, but it's just the idea of what's the minimum number of hours toward a grade point are we comfortable with in terms of attesting to the fact that someone has graduated with a 2.4. The point is certainly for that type of transfer student it's a forty- five hour minimum and yet for a readmit student we need an additional sixty additional hours.
There were a few cases of students who were asked to withdraw fairly late in their program and these are students who are required to stay for another sixty hours. I mean they were like second semester juniors and even with losing a few D's, we were asking them to stay quite a substantial amount of time longer. I just personally I felt comfortable with forty-five hours of credit towards their GPA after their return was sufficient for me to feel comfortable attesting to that grade point.
Jefferson Westwood: You're suggesting that within the typical forty- five hours they could also complete their major and their GCP and their 120 credits and any other requirements. I would say what is the point of forcing the student to take fifteen extra credits of elective?
Ken Mantai: Just out of curiosity, if a student withdraws voluntarily do they have to be readmitted?
Joseph Straight: No.
Ken Lucey: I'm a little embarrassed to have to ask this question because I should know the answer. To graduate from Fredonia how many hours of three and four hundred level courses does a student have to take?
Tom Rywick: There is no college policy.
Joseph Straight: We've debated that. We've proposed to have some sort of requirement. Currently there is not an upper division requirement.
The motion to reduce the number of credits that are required of students under the readmission policy from sixty to forty-five was passed unanimously.
8c. Jon Kraus (Planning and Budget):
We will be trying to elicit ideas, suggestions and criticisms from the campus...
8d. George Sebouhian (Professional Service):
The Faculty Council has asked the Professional Services Committee to address this charge: In what ways do other colleges and universities make decisions for tenure, promotion and merit. At this stage we have obtained information about procedures used by a few SUNY colleges and some out of state schools.
If anyone has contacts with universities and may be able to provide relevant information on procedures particularly for SUNY schools please contact Joan Burke via email at: burke@ait.fredonia.edu Jon Kraus: Does the GCP committee come under Academic Affairs?
Chair Romal: No, it is a standing committee. There is some question that we are trying to resolve about whether Cheryl is really the chair, because she has never been elected or anything. We are going to address that at the next executive meeting.
Jon Kraus: I'm just wondering whether such a committee which considers proposals coming in has an existing set of standards. Things which are currently being submitted are being decided in an ad-hoc fashion by the members. There was not a keen awareness of past practice. That is such an important matter; I was just wondering whether there was maybe somebody who knows this from the past and would know whether there are an existing series of procedures or standards under which GCP committee decisions are made.
George Browder: There are criteria for each category of the GCP.
9. Sandra Lewis: Last week everyone should have received a copy of our policy procedures.
Last fall I believe the appropriate action committees met to review the policies. So last spring they came up with a set of policies and procedures and brought them before the Executive Committee of Faculty Council but have gone through several revisions. You basically have the last revision.
The four-part recruitment form is used again and we combined some of the information on it into one form, we now have one recruitment form. The part that you have to complete before you do your search is two pages, and then after the search you complete the rest of the report.
Dick Weist: I have two objections to this. One of them is on page four. Essentially number four requests that you explain why it is that you did not want to hire somebody. I don't think that the search committee should be put in the position of explaining why they are turning people down.
Bob Deming: I absolutely disagree. I think it's the search committee's responsibility to explain for affirmative action and for other purposes why they are not recommending a specific candidate. They know the answer to the question, state it.
Dick Weist: On page two of the SUNY Fredonia recruitment policies and procedures document, item five, the second to last statement I think is correct: "The completed form shall be forwarded to the Vice President/Dean who shall consult with the Affirmative Action Officer" and I think consult is the proper procedure. The last sentence is the one I object to. It says that "the final offer can not been made without the approval of the Vice-President/Dean", that part is OK with me, and the second part I reject, "and the Affirmative Action Officer."
This essentially gives the Affirmative Action Officer the power to veto a recruitment. I think that people like the President, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Deans are recruited with a great deal of faculty input. I don't think they would end up staying in the job very long if they didn't consult with the Affirmative Action Officer. I think they should do that consultation, but I don't think somebody who is appointed such as the Affirmative Action Officer should be raised to that level in the decision making.
Bob Deming: I absolutely disagree with the gentleman once again. I know of very few other institutions where the Affirmative Action Officer is not required to sign off on the affirmative action process. That's lacking in this document and I wonder why. It's in the section that Dick is referring to in the general policy but it's not in the recruitment forms.
Chair Romal: It's on the bottom of page two.
Bob Deming: Yes, but this is a signature that the Affirmative Action Officer gives only after completion of stages A, B, C and D. It's not where the Affirmative Action Officer signs off at the conclusion of the search process.
Sandra Lewis: The search committee chair signs off on that part. Are you talking about the end?
Bob Deming: It would seem to me that we are doing something fairly loose here.
Ruth Antosh: This is a streamlined form. The first form of this was much more vigorous. There was considerable concern on the campus that it was a bit too detailed. There was a draft where the Affirmative Action Officer did sign off at several stages of the search. A number of chairs indicated that they felt that was too complicated and intrusive. Our feeling is that this is a workable document. The Affirmative Action Officer giving approval and then signing off at the end is adequate. There are some other members of that sub-committee here I think.
Jon Kraus: We're worried about delays that would take place in the process if we had too many stages along the way.
Chair Romal: When you say the Affirmative Action Officer gives approval at the end ,where Dick objects. It's approval that the process has been followed properly. It has nothing to do with the candidate, but why doesn't it say that in there? Wouldn't that address your problem with it, Dick?
Dick Weist: Oh yeah, yeah I'm fine with the Affirmative Action Officer approving the process. The Administration, it's part of their job to approve the candidate. If the Dean or VP has a particular objection to a particular candidate that person will not get hired.
Sandra Lewis: If the Affirmative Action Officer has an objection to how that person was hired...
Dick Weist: I think that should be made clear. Because if the Affirmative Action Officer finds that this person is brought forth in a way which violates the procedure, then ...
Sandra Lewis: That's what that statement means.
Chair Romal: But it doesn't say that.
Jon Kraus: I agree with Dick Weist and disagree with Professor Deming. It sounds to me completely as if the Affirmative Action Officer is the person who approves or does not approve whether you make an offer to the individual. Is the Affirmative Action Officer signing off on the candidate?
Bob Deming: The Affirmative Action Officer has to sign off on the process.
Chair Romal: On the process, and it doesn't say that though. It should just be reworded to say what you want it to say.
Chair Romal: One way to do that would be to put "The verbal offer cannot be made without a) the approval of the Vice President/Dean, and b) the signature of the Affirmative Action officer indicating that Affirmative Action policies were followed throughout the search.
Dick Weist: Isn't that accomplished in step four rather than at step five? I mean before you get to the offer of employment in step five the Affirmative Action Officer has to sign of that this has been a valid affirmative action search. Isn't that accomplished in step four so you don't need this statement in step five?
Sandra Lewis: That's just the initial step to recruit, and the rest of the report isn't done until the end of the whole search process when you have the candidate. At any point along there could be a violation of affirmative action.
Ken Lucey: I just want to understand what's happening here. I have a search next spring for a one-year replacement. We have finalists and we're down to two. The department made its recommendation. At that point I went to the Dean and got approval for a verbal offer. I didn't check with the Affirmative Action Officer at that time. I had the Deans' approval and made the verbal offer. Now before a Presidential letter of appointment was made I'm sure the Affirmative Action Officer had to sign off, but I wasn't getting permission to make a verbal offer from the affirmative action officer. I might have lost my candidate if I had several more steps in there. Am I hearing now that it wasn't enough just to have the Deans' approval? I had to have other approvals as well. If so I think that's disastrous.
Ruth Antosh: I think the assumption is that the Dean and the Affirmative Action Officer will be consulting at frequent points, and that's why the forty-eight hour period is mentioned here so that there can't be a delay of more than forty-eight hours. The whole thought was that there would be a joint agreement.
Dick Weist: I think this should be re-written to make clear what the Affirmative Action Officer is doing. The forty-eight hours, I don't take that to be trivial at all. You seem to be saying that that's quick. That's not quick in recruiting. There are plenty of times when candidates have other offers that they have to respond to in twenty-four hours, so forty-eight hours gives me the difference between hiring somebody and not hiring.
A motion was made and passed by a majority vote to allow the meeting to continue past 5:30.
Bob Deming: Doesn't Ken's situation fall under temporary appointments rather than full search procedures? A one-year replacement, doesn't that fall under temporary rather than search?
Chair Romal: Yes it does, so it's different.
Sandra Lewis: How about, "A verbal offer cannot be made without the approval of the vice-president/dean in consultation with the affirmative action officer, which will be given within forty-eight hours."
Ken Lucey: The reason we decided to go with this was that the Affirmative Action Officer did have the power to stop the search at any point. The affirmative action officer is supposed to be more or less the watchdog over the whole campus and the whole administration. If the Affirmative Action Officer felt there was something illegal that didn't go with the guidelines, he or she would have the power to stop it.
Joe Straight: I think that the way to do it is to have appropriate checkpoints where the Affirmative Action Officer intervenes and signs off. One would be, and it's in here, at the stage where you're getting ready to interview. Another one would be after the verbal offer has been made before an actual written offer is made. At the stage where the verbal offers are being made, things are very crucial there and I think at certain points you have to have good faith and hope that the people are going to operate in good faith with the guidelines realizing that it is possible that someplace there when the verbal offers are flying around and so on that a policy could be violated and the Affirmative Action Officer would have to step in, before the President has made a written offer and say, "No this wasn't right." We've lost minority candidates because of delays.
George Browder: You can't make a verbal offer and then withdraw it because of Affirmative Action procedures.
Bob Deming: If you signed off in step 4, you've approved the process up to the verbal offer.
Sandra Lewis: No, I've only signed off before the interviews.
Jon Kraus: This is a major matter whether or not we will have the Affirmative Action Officer determine the final outcome of a search. This is a major step. The Affirmative Action Officer can consult with the Vice Presidents or Deans.
Harry Jacobs: During the interview process, these judgments would be so subjective that Affirmative Action should not be involved.
Ruth Antosh: Something might happen during the interviews that would render the process invalid. Someone could say something to a candidate or treat them differentially.
Alberto Ray: If someone did not meet the same people, for example.
Jefferson Westwood: We might need a different process here rather than having the search committee chair consult with the Affirmative Action Officer just before making the verbal offer.
Carl Ferraro: It seems that the process should be evaluated, not the final candidate.
Dick Weist: Each scenario would involve the Affirmative Action Officer consulting with the President, and then the President would act. This does not require the Affirmative Action Officer have the final veto.
President Hefner: We want a good strong Affirmative Action program. We want a sign-off before the verbal offer. The Affirmative Action Officer is not going to be checking on credentials or the degrees, but is signing on the validity of the process.
Dick Weist: I'd like to see it rewritten as the President stated.
A motion was made and passed that the committee reconsider the language in numbers four and five to make clear the role of the Affirmative Action officer in the final stages of the search process.
10. The meeting was adjourned at ~5:40PM
Attendance:
Professional Staff/Management Confidential:
[x] Sylvia Clarke
[ ] Fabrizio Daloisio
[x] James Jackson
[x] Susan Maloney
[x] Lisa Marrano
[x] Kevin Michki
[ ] William Ortega
[x] Patrick Rocheleau
[x] Martha Smith
[x] Terry Tzitzis
[ ] Charlene Wiles
Arts, Education, and Humanities:
[x] Candice Brown
[x] Robert Deming
[x] Janet Fairbairn
[x] Carl Farraro
[x] Harry Jacobson
[x] Robert Klassen
[ ] Rose Klassen
[x] Kenneth Lucey
[x] David Ludlam
[E] Lawrence Maheady
[x] George Sebouhian
Natural and Social Sciences:
[x] Seyed-Mahmoud Agazadeh
[x] Nancy Boynton
[x] George Browder
[x] Nancy Gee
[x] Michael Grady
[x] Jon Kraus
[ ] Gary Lash
[x] Kenneth Mantai
[ ] Greg Prechtl
[ ] Amin Sarkar
[x] Brenda Joyce Stephens
[x] Richard Weist
[ ] Deborah Welch
Ex. Officio Member:
[x] Tracy Bennett (Interim VP, Admin.)
[x] Vince Courtney (Governance Chair)
[ ] Michael Dmitri (VP Student Affairs)
[x] Len Faulk (Intern VP Academic Affairs)
[ ] Pablo Gion-Fanjul (SA President)
[x] Dennis Hefner (President)
[x] Julie Henry (Council Secretary)
[x] Daniel Jelski (Council Vice-Chair)
[x] Jean Malinoski (VP, Development)
[x] Jane Romal (Chair, Faculty Council)
[x] Thomas Rywick (Interim Dean, NaSSaPS)
[x] Jacqueline Swansinger (Interim Dean, AaS)
[x] Mojtaba Seyedian (Faculty Senator)
[x] Jefferson Westwood (Parliamentarian)
Guests:
Joseph Straight
Sandra A. Lewis
Nan Bowser
Michael Lemieiuy