College Senate
Minutes of the meeting of September 13th 1999
Chair George Browder called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM.
1. A quorum was present and the Agenda was approved unanimously as amended.
Jon Kraus: In past agendas we've had a series of committee reports and I see that you've cut back on the Planning and Budget, and GCP committees.
Chair Browder: We've decided that if the committees don't tell us they have a report there is no reason to put something on the agenda that is not going to be there. If there is an objection to that for some reason or other I'd be glad to hear it.
2. The minutes of the May 12th 1999 meeting were approved unanimously.
3. Dr. Dennis L. Hefner (President's report):
Welcome back to the start of another academic year. It's nice to be here with the College Senate. As I was walking out my door I said, "I'm going to the Faculty Council meeting" and both Doranne and Theresa immediately corrected me and said, "no, College Senate." I'll get use to it, but if I slip please forgive me.
Tomorrow will be an exciting day David Halberstam coming to our campus. He arrives later this evening and will be here for several days. I've had a chance to read several of his books this summer. I'm currently reading The Fifties, it's fascinating to go back and see what he's put together; it's just a tremendous amount of research. I think he's going to be a wonderful kickoff for our yearlong theme looking at the American Century. I did want to especially praise Dan Jelski and the entire Convocation Committee for a lot of hard work. It's not easy to put a program like this in place, and I know that they've been working very diligently to get this series off and along.
There are just a few things on the campus I might mention. In terms of enrollment, we'll actually get a census enrollment on Wednesday, but as of last week our annualized projection looks like for full-time equivalent we're going to be around 4900. Our target is 4850, so we're a little over target. The odds are we're going to come in slightly over target on enrollment. That's been the head count that goes along with this. As of last week we were at 5009 head count; remember 5002 by 2002 was FTE not head-count so we haven't reached it yet, but we're doing very well. I thought what's most especially helpful was the fact that our graduate enrollment has turned around and is now going back up. It was a little under 220 last year; it's now over 280 in terms of head-count of graduate students. That's a major reversal and that, I think, breathes a little life into our graduate programs.
At the system level you probably have heard the collective bargaining issue has been resolved, so the 32.2 million that was system money to cover the previous collective bargaining agreement (that's not the current one people are voting on, that was the previous agreement, last year) has been resolved. That, I think, is very good news. We do still come down close to three hundred thousand. There were some other things we needed in order to maintain status quo that were not covered by legislature, so there will be a little bit of bell fighting. It shouldn't have major impacts though. It's a small amount and should be able to be taken care of. Just so you know this wasn't a standard fiscal year.
We are having an advocacy luncheon for our legislators on October fourth. I didn't want to bring them here until after the collective bargaining issue was resolved. I was afraid they'd get lynched right here on campus if that was still an ongoing issue, but now that's been resolved we're in the process of scheduling that and it will go forward. We continue working with our legislatures. Our local legislators are very supportive of this campus and I think have been very supportive of higher education, but sometimes they run into a lot of opposition when they get to Albany.
Also at the system level the mission review will be continuing. We had submitted that proposal last spring. I was talking to the Provost last week and he said that ours was one of only a couple of campuses that followed the regulations and turned in a proposal when we were supposed to turn in a proposal, so they decided to delay the program and send out another call for proposals. I don't think they are ever going to spend that money, but if they do, we've got a proposal sitting there ready to help them with it. The program's not dead, it's just not moving very quickly.
The Chancellor's search, I'm getting reports now that the committee is meeting about every two weeks. The advertisement, as you know, was out about three weeks ago and hopefully we'll have more to report as it gets a little further along in the process.
There's one final thing that I did want to mention and then I'll answer any questions if anyone has any. If you haven't had a chance to go over to the Williams Center and see what they are calling Café G (in the G room), I think it's G138-G140 that they've converted into a place for lunch, you'll want to go over and see it. I think it's a significant improvement over having a couple tables stuck in the bookstore where it really was hard to carry on a conversation. If you have a chance, stick your head in and take a look at it. The prices are even reasonable although when I was talking to Chuck Notaro the other day, he said, "boy I'm going to get in a lot of trouble the first time I ever raise the price above four dollars." The price, I think, is three ninety-five, not counting the tax for a buffet lunch or if you want a hot entrée it's a little more than that. Don't quote me on the price, I could be slightly wrong. I know it's four twenty-three with tax. It's a pretty good deal. Anyway with that does anybody have any questions you'd like to ask on anything?
Jane Romal: With increased enrollment parking is worse than ever. Some of my students have to park in the D & F parking lot to get to class.
President Hefner: Well some things are being done. In parking one of the axioms of parking is as soon as you put more parking spaces in more cars will come. We did put a new lot in. There is a new lot of almost a hundred additional spaces in here. In terms of undergraduate freshman, the freshman are being blamed, there are only forty more freshman this year than last year. It is not a huge freshman class. It is a smaller transfer class than we had last year. Our retention rates are up however which is good news all around that the retention rates are up. And we do have more graduate students, although most of them come for night courses.
A lot of the concerns that people have are just concerns that you have at the beginning of every semester. There are more parking stickers out this year than there were last year because there are more students and more faculty. One of the things I would encourage is in classes if you have students that live within a four-block radius of the campus, suggest that they walk to the campus and not drive.
I was accosted by a grandmother, of a young woman who is living in an apartment down by Birchwood who drives to campus every day, and the grandmother was saying her granddaughter just can't find parking. I had difficulty sympathizing with her. Parking is always a problem. Remember I come from California, I've yet to see bad parking on this campus compared to what I've seen out there.
Dick Reddy: This is a somewhat biased question, so you know that ahead of time. However, there was a time on campus where there was an interest in the aesthetics of the campus and the way in which the campus looked. Yet in the past few weeks or so there have appeared on the south side of Thompson Hall two beverage dispensing machines that are really glaringly ugly. I am very much interested in your response to two questions. One, who is responsible for this outrage and second, when will they be removed.
President Hefner: We have a campus committee that is actually in charge of those types of activities, so I'm going to turn that over to whichever appropriate committee that is. I'm not happy about the storage cabinets that are right out over here, because they block the sunlight. They may be gone today, but up until this weekend they were sitting there. There is a committee looking at placement for certain beverages. We were delighted to have a contract with Pepsi, but that doesn't mean we need a Pepsi machine every ten feet across the entire campus. Yes I am aware that there is a little excessive use of vending machines.
4. Una Mae Reck (Vice President, Academic Affairs):
I hope everybody picked up a copy of the Academic Master Plan; they are up here. This plan was presented at our last meeting; this is the final reading. If you follow me closely, there were a few changes.
On the first page, the history department, the NSED, the social studies was changed from 2003 to 2001. On the second page, at the top of the new degree proposal, NSED curriculum instruction was also changed from 2003 to 2001. NSED in bilingual education under that was 2001. The rational for changing that is in terms of the Regents requirements, we need to be on the ball in terms of 2001.
Under Health Services Administration, the MA that was in the integrated proposal title was deleted for lack of personnel. Those are the changes in there.
As you see, it is a projection for five years, but I want to remind you that I call it a living document. Every year you will see me in May and September to look at this and we will be going one more year with changes. What this does is it gives these program areas the mission to plan on campus. Then we will look and see what the results of the planning are and decide where we go in terms of submitting it to NSED. So this is presented to you for informational purposes and comments.
Stephen Rees: Is it possible to have this document altered to reflects the recent name change of Theatre Arts from simply Theatre Arts to Theatre Arts and Dance.
Una Mae Reck: Yes. I apologize.
5. Daniel Ihasz (Planning and Budget):
We met last week to discuss the lines in the handout that you have there. There are, as you see on the front page, thirteen replacement positions, plus four both lines, and the title three grant we received is three more lines, so the total is twenty-eight all together. Following that cover page is a rational from each department. I thought it might be beneficial, as it was in our meeting, to have each one of the deans just briefly describe their rational for each line. This was for discussion and comment.
Dean Schwartz: In the division of Arts and Humanities the first line in the department of communication is a replacement for John Malcolm, who retired a year ago in the summer. During the past year we've searched for a replacement. That search failed and so we re-opened that search.
The English position is a result of the resignation last spring of Andrea Herrera. The English Department has decided to shift that position into the area of English Education because they see a strong need in that area.
The history position is a result of the retirement of Dirk Raat, which was effective this fall.
The theatre and dance position is in response to the retirement of Bob Klassen. Bob will be retiring at the end of this semester. The graphic design position is another one that we had searched for in the past year. It is a replacement for a position that was not being used, the search failed last year and we have a temporary person now. The photography position, Terry Lindquist announced late this summer that he's retiring effective immediately. He's agreed to stay on an adjunct basis, but the art department has decided that that's an area in which they need a replacement, as there is a strong demand for photography courses.
The English-American Studies position was open due to the retirement of James Huffman who announced he'd be retiring next summer. His area was American Studies; the English Department has expanded the job description for that position to include contemporary American literature as well as American studies.
The final replacement position in Arts and Humanities is in Music. Laurence Wyman has announced that he will be retiring at the end of this academic year. The School of Music has deemed it necessary to continue its program in saxophone and replace the position.
Dean Stahl: The first position under biology is from the resignation of Melinda La Branche. Biology has just undergone a national search for a temporary faculty member and the one-year position will allow it to turn into a two-year position. In the meantime we'll transfer the line over to education for an instruction position for the CNI masters. The second biology position in genetics is from the resignation of Lauri Caslake. The genetics position is very important for a number of programs in addition to the general biology major.
The organic chemistry position is from the resignation of Konrad Kabsa and that will go back to the department for chemistry.
Computer Science had a failed search and that will go back to the computer science department. Their freshman applications were down somewhat, but their numbers are still very very strong, and the potential for growth is great.
In the School of Education the ad admin was a failed search. That will go back to the School of Education. Education reading, a retirement position as a result of the retirement of Harold Roeder, that will go back to the School of Education. The resignation is from Patricia Chrosniak, who resigned over the summer. Enrollments are robust and increasing, and we will staff the program appropriately.
In Mathematics Lucyna Kabza resigned. Math Department enrollments are stable. We expect them to grow as a result of regent's plans, and so the position will go back to that department.
Psychology counseling there was a resignation of Julia Grimm, and a retirement of Richard Leva. Both those go back to the department. The departments' enrollments are solid and those positions are crucial to maintaining the program. There also was the retirement of Glen Jensen in Psychology and again that went back to the department for the same reason.
In sociology there were two retirements, Paul Dommermuth and David Larson who announced his retirement effective at the end of this coming academic year. Both of these we're asking to go towards the H.S.A. side of the house in terms of the first one we're asking that we have a person who can help with H.S.A., but also help within the department filling any needs in sociology. The second position we're in particular looking for someone who can help with the more quantitative aspects of healthcare. In terms of this, as we hire depending upon the background of the person, it may be that instead of sociology it would result in another department, perhaps business for example.
Dean Schwartz: We're recommending two new positions in the area of arts and humanities. The first is in the department of theatre and dance. To point out the rational, the theatre department presently has appointed individuals filling two rolls both as lighting and sound director. The department has seen a recent growth in enrollments, and a percent increase in new freshman this year over last year, and a significant number of those new students are interested in the production area.
Secondly in media arts, right now there are sixty-five majors in the program, and only two full-time faculty. The department will easily meet its goal of eighty majors by next year, and we think it's time to add a third position.
Dean Stahl: There are two in Natural and Social Sciences and Professional Studies. The first is in Speech Pathology. Speech Pathology has the largest full-time graduate program on campus. Their ratios of student to faculty are such that they are outside the limits set by the national accrediting agency. By adding another faculty member we will be able to increase the pool and at the same time get within guidelines set by the accrediting body. We also will be able to hire in an area in which we are currently un-staffed that is staffed by most of the competitors in the region.
The second one will go to Business Administration, here were looking at a tremendous potential for growth and this was one of the recommendations that came from the outside evaluation that was performed last year. In particular we're looking at marketing as the area that the line should be in because that is facing the most need right now.
Dean Schwartz: The title three lines remain possible by the grant from the US Department of Education. One of the major activities of that grant is to strengthen the minority studies program on campus, and the grant will specifically fund fully these three positions in Latino Studies, Native-American Studies, and African-American studies. This is the first year of the grant and the president has agreed to allow us to search for tenure track positions in these areas in order to maximize the opportunity.
Nancy Boynton: So when the grant runs out, then the college is going to take over funding those positions.
Dean Schwartz: That's right.
Una Mae Reck: I just wanted to say that I will be recommending this to the president.
President Hefner: There are two other things to point out. We did receive one additional faculty position and we were asked by the system to identify a position, so the media arts position in here is the one that has been identified, in which we will in fact be hiring a tenure track position.
On the title three grant, there are a total of five positions that are included in that grant, some of which have two years of funding, some of which have less funding. In order to score well, to receive this money there needed to be a commitment from the campus that there would be some tenure track positions coming out of it, some continuance of these particular programs. These are the three positions that would in fact be covered under that. There will be two others. One comes in the following year, the other a year after that as I recall. Those will not be tenure track positions, so this is the extent of the commitment that the campus has, but what it means that out of future funds we are going to need to cover up to three positions over the next five years.
Amin Sarkar: I'm referring to the economics position that is proposed to be in the sociology department. This position continued until the early nineties in the economics department, for quite a long time. In 1994 we lost a faculty member who was an economist and the line was closed. For economics we are using part-time adjuncts. For this position, I think it needs to be allocated in the economics department. An economist, health economist, labor economist, or environmental economist would probably find the economics department a more natural location, so that is my comment.
Dean Stahl: There was a request put in by economics for this as well as one from sociology. In looking at this we have not outlawed the possibility of putting this elsewhere. However, in terms of where the need is, at this point it's not in economics.
6. George Browder (Chairperson's report)
Three reminders... Don't be insulted if I don't call you by name, remember that problem. Please do give your name whenever you speak. It helps both of us down here.
On procedures, remember our procedures are normally a modified version of Robert's Rules, no one has the patients for the full rules. I don't think anybody wants that. The trouble with that is, of course, it leaves it up to my judgement as to whether or not something is expedient, and I don't want to run over anybody's sense of how much discussion or debate should be involved. I certainly don't want to step on anybody's rights. I have absolutely no problems with anyone questioning a procedural move on my part. If you think that I'm cutting off debate or doing anything procedurally wrong, I would very much appreciate your saying so, and if I think you're right I'll certainly back down and change what I've done. However if not, I would certainly ask for the judgement of the body as to what would be the proper procedure and get guidance in that way. Please don't worry about giving me any offense, I won't take any. Just question anything where you think I have gone too far in abridging the rules of order.
The third reminder is that members of both the senate and all elected committees are held by the bylaws to strict attendance. Two consecutive absences or a total of three absences during the year is supposed to result in your being replaced. We are required to do that, and we have started monitoring attendance with an eye towards doing that. This means that we are confronted with the possibility of replacing somewhere between nine and fifteen members of the Senate already. If you think you fall into one of those categories and there are real extenuating circumstances, please let us know. We will be in touch with you. The point here is that excused absences are not like an excused absence from class. The principle according to the bylaws is, if you make yourself available to these offices you are supposed to be free to attend them, and there should not be conflicting priorities, and if there are, you are not supposed to be holding the position. We will proceed with that problem.
There are two items on which I would like your guidance. Next weekend I'm supposed to attend the SUNY Senate planning session. As a governance leader I'm supposed to participate with the planning committee in planning the agenda for this year and there are two items on which I would like your guidance.
In case you have not heard there is a serious problem on the Old Westbury campus and we have been asked to support their complaint. I'll read the first paragraph of the appeal from their governance body to the rest of us. Basically their president has been appointed without due process.
A flawed and compromised search process that violated every single SUNY Presidential search guideline, which resulted in the precipitous nomination of a single candidate for the presidency of the SUNY College at Old Westbury to the Chancellor. The entire search lasted eight days. The search committee had no Academic Deans or administrators, no faculty, no students and no alumni representatives. There was no advertising; only two candidates were interviewed. One the current interim president, the other Reverend Butts, a man whose nomination was made known to us only through a newspaper report published some days earlier quoting Chair Egan and Trustee Daniels as supporting this candidate for the presidency. Reverend Butts is the only nomination forwarded to the Chancellor; the Chancellor has made the nomination to the Trustees. [I believe I'm correct, the Trustees have actually approved this and the position is in place]
President Hefner: No, the Trustees at their September meeting, I believe it's September twenty-second, will have this coming before them.
Chair Browder: The second paragraph, and the articles published on this, go on to make this stink even worse. Allegedly there are all kinds of games going on here with the use of property belonging to the SUNY system. The appointments apparently have something to do with conflict of interest, so on and so forth. I'm not in any position to comment on the accuracy of that, but it just adds still further to the bad taste that this particular appointment leaves. Finally, this is the last part of the appeal:
We have appealed to local legislators and have been told that this presidential nomination is a done deal. We have been repeatedly threatened that should we continue to agitate for due process in the presidential search, we will be closed down. These threats have come from a variety of people who purport to speak for senior members of the Legislature, the Governor and the Board. Those that speak less threateningly tell us that these actions, the forceful appointment of a president and the transfer of a massive proportion of our campus are being done in our best interest. After all the reasoning goes, we were on the hit list of campuses to be closed four years ago. These development plans are to keep the campus open.
This will be an item on the agenda, and I assume we'll be asked to take a position. I would prefer that we postpone any vote of our own until after the planning session, until next month, unless you think otherwise, that is any official position of this body on the subject. But if you wish, we could proceed. I would at least like some guidance from you as to what position I should take.
Minda Rae Amiran: This seems to be the worst news we've had so far regarding representation of the SUNY system. This is absolutely unconscionable. If we don't fight it vigorously, if we don't make them pay in some way for annoyance value, it will be a precedent that can be carried out anywhere anytime. Do any of you have any suggestions about what we can most reasonably do at this point?
President Hefner: Well it certainly is, I thought, an appalling action on the part of the College Council and some members of the Board of Trustees. The Chancellor should have opposed it; he did not. He has in fact endorsed it and forwarded this name on to the board, so it's going to be going on to the Board at the September meeting. There are several Trustees that are very unhappy with this particular action. There are also former board members who have sent letters to all of the board, urging that they find a graceful way to get out of this particular appointment.
I think, giving a clear message to the Chair of the College Senate to express concern is very appropriate. As a group of presidents, we have already expressed concerns over this. We think it's outrageous to act that particular way. I did bring this issue up with our College Council members. I learned of this the night before the College Council met, so I brought it up with them and they too were outraged that this occurred.
They did not follow any of the guidelines whatsoever. There are fairly specific guidelines for appointments of presidents, and they didn't follow any of them. I don't think it has to do with the candidate per se, it really has to do with the process.
Minda Rae Amiran: I read the Chancellor has been quoted as saying that those guidelines were merely recommendations.
President Hefner: Yes. That was the first I heard of that.
Minda Rae Amiran: I gathered that the new President of Old Westbury is such a genius that he can continue to hold position at his church at the same time.
President Hefner: Yes. He would be a part-time president.
Chair Browder: He's also the head of the state committee that supervises the use of state lands for developmental purposes.
Jon Kraus: Yes. He's a member of that board. That's a volunteer board.
Minda Rae Amiran: If George waits until after this meeting, it's going to be after the Board meeting and the board will already have approved this process. Is there something we can do before then to make the board think it's not worth their time?
President Hefner: When are you meeting George?
Chair Browder: This weekend. You said the meeting was when?
President Hefner: I think it is the twenty-first or twenty-second.
Chair Browder: I thought it was already a done deal.
President Hefner: No, it has not gone before the Board, and the Board members are sending memos around to one another right now. It's a pretty hot issue at the Board as it should be.
Chair Browder: So, if we're going to take a public statement position on this it would have to be done now.
Jon Kraus: In terms of guidelines for selecting a president. President Hefner could you elicit in terms of the guidelines for search committees and selections of presidents of SUNY campuses. Are these part of procedures written into campus bylaws? What are they written into? What kind of legal status do they have?
George Browder: All I know is that there was Trustee guidelines issued in 1997. They've always been binding on us of course. The legal nomination is of course by College Council, and the participation of the campus, the faculty and all of that in the process has always been tradition, common law almost. Administrative law...
President Hefner: Yeah, the guidelines were approved by the Board of Trustees. These are guidelines from the board themselves that campuses are expected to follow. It is fairly clear in there, you are supposed to conduct a national search, that the committee is to be made up of College Council members and other representative constituent groups from the campus, specifically including faculty members. They are not supposed to go in a room and eight days come out and send forward a single name. They are in fact within the guidelines at the campus level to send forward three names to the Chancellor and from those three names the Chancellor then selects one to bring forward to the Board. That doesn't mean that College Council and Search Committee couldn't have said, "here are three names, but here is how we like them." List their strengths and weaknesses and so forth. You can make it pretty clear what the desires of the campus are, but none of that was followed.
Mac Nelson: I make a motion, resolved:
The College Senate and SUNY Fredonia deplores the improper and un-procedural attempt to appoint a President at SUNY Old Westbury and urges the SUNY Trustees to reject any such appointment.
The motion was seconded.
Jon Kraus: Would you accept as a friendly amendment inserting in some appropriate place the failure to consult campus constituencies.
Mac Nelson: Sure, I can work it in.
Jan McVickers: I'm disturbed by all the procedural motions, and I'm also concerned that their campus constituencies were not at all a part of the consultation process. I'm also wondering if it's constitutional to have someone who is the head of a religious organization be appointment to a state operated institution. I'm wonder if that conflict is constitutional for a state institution. I wonder if that might also be part of what you bring up at your meeting.
Chair Browder: I'll certainly float that. Thank you.
Dick Reddy: Just another comment that may be highly cynical, nonetheless, with the question coming up about the use of very valuable property in that vicinity. For those of you who don't know it, Old Westbury is an extraordinarily valuable piece of property, which is now being split up, as apparently a part of this deal, so that various developmental groups would be able to use it. Various business corporations would be able to use the land. The real cynicism here is that if they close the campus, there'll be even more land available.
Mac Nelson: I have a new wording, I don't know if Jon will like it. I just added it before mine:
That the College Senate at Fredonia deplores the lack of consultation in the improper and unprocedural attempt... [same as before]
Jon Kraus: I would still like it to say campus constituencies.
Mac Nelson: Failure to consult campus constituencies. Ok, I'll work this in...
The College Senate at SUNY Fredonia deplores the improper and unprocedural attempt to appoint a president at SUNY Old Westbury and the failure to consult campus constituencies in this process...
Jane Romal: We want condemns in there.
Jon Kraus: How do you like condemns instead of deplores?
Mac Nelson: Whatever ...and urges the SUNY Board of Trustees to reject any such appointment.
Chair Browder: Are we condemning or deploring?
Dick Reddy: Just an observation, and that is presumably a college council is the campus constituency. So with that wording the claim can be made they consulted the campus constituency because they consulted the college council.
Chair Browder: That is technically true I guess.
Minda Rae: This is confusing to me. Procedures require consultation of appropriate campus constituencies; so to say that they both violated the procedures and failed to consult seems to me somewhat blurry as if we think the procedures don't require consultation. I would really prefer Mac's original wording, I think it comprises what we want in that.
Jon Kraus: Failure to consult however...
Chair Browder: Let's make a formal amendment and discuss and vote on the matter please.
Jon Kraus: Shall we conclude, "and the failure to consult all appropriate constituencies"
The amendment to the motion was seconded and passed by a majority vote.
The motion was approved unanimously as amended.
Chair Browder: I will certainly take this motion to the meeting. Do we wish to send this to the Trustees, to the Chancellor, someone please make an appropriate motion.
Jan McVicker: I so move that you send this to the Chancellor and to the Board of Trustees as well as to the Governance of SUNY Central.
Dick Reddy: This may not have any impact whatsoever, it probably won't, but nonetheless in terms of doing it, it needs to be done immediately, so they have it in hand prior to their meetings.
Chair Browder: Yes, absolutely. It will be sent immediately.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Chair Browder: The second item that I'm concerned with at the planning session has to do with the Provosts guidelines on the implementation of the SUNY wide General Education Program. You are going to get a report on this from Cheryl shortly. She's got a handout for you that summarize those guidelines.
I'm personally very much disturbed by these guidelines, however, I think the general strategy is that we try to work around them as best we can and proceed with our own plan. What bothers me is how this is going to be handled by the SUNY Senate. You may remember the SUNY Senate led us in a vote of no confidence in the Board of Trustees; one reason for which was their attempt to impose a General College Program. They then proceeded to, in my opinion, fritter away the impact of this motion. It got lost and the upshot was that the Governor actually appointed one of the Trustees or the Chair of the Trustees, two of them a year earlier as a kind of slap back at us.
The only concession that came out of this was an agreement that the Provost would put together a committee which would make recommendations that would make this proposal more acceptable to us. The Senate Executive Committee has now announced that these guidelines that we have received are a triumph, it has endorsed them fully as a product of faculty consultation. There were five faculty members on that committee, one of whom was AG & TECH, one of whom was from Community Colleges, two of whom were from the Superior Schools and one from the University. That was the extent of faculty consultation on these guidelines.
As a historian, I would add two notes. The document that was originally published attacking the General Education Program in SUNY, which precipitated all of this, proclaimed that they would do two things. If we did not create one they liked, they would impose it, and secondly they would proceed to appoint presidents who would assist in imposing this from above.
I'm begging to sound like Chicken Little. I see an awful lot of potential fall out from all of this. I don't think that we need respond as a campus to this. As a matter of fact I think it would be very unwise, since it looks like the Senate is now talking entirely in terms of how we comply with these guidelines and we're still waiting for the final shoe to drop on the guidelines. We have one more definitive document that's supposed to come down before we can get to work to meet the December deadline for submitting all of this, which we hope to get around also.
In essence I would like to know if anyone has any help for me on this. I'm going to the meeting with my ears open trying to find out just what the heck the Senate Executive Committee is doing, what its strategy is if it has one and where the other colleges stand. I guess the last thing we can afford to do is be out by ourselves on this particular issue.
Mac Nelson: My first thought is that they are hilariously impossible. I point for example on the second page to foreign language. Students who demonstrate basic proficiency in the understanding and use of a foreign language... marvelous, we have to hire twenty-four more people for the language department right? I mean there is no way this could possibly be achieved. I wonder if my friends in math are going to be going around testing people in geometry and arithmetic. That's what it seems to suggest. They're just unworkable.
Chair Browder: There are all sorts of circles and contradictions. It seems in one place to give something and in another place to take it way and it is extremely difficult to interpret.
Mac Nelson: They're DUMB.
Chair Browder: Well, that beyond. The General Education Committee has already given me some guidelines on specific problem like that, which I will discuss or bring forward if it seems like the Senate is moving that direction.
Mac Nelson: At the very least you could say it has huge implications for hiring.
Chair Browder: Oh, but their going to provide us with the lines... someday it says.
Nancy Boynton: Mac, the other side of this, the Math work is actually high school level. They should know that when they come here.
Chair Browder: Almost all of it is high school work, which is what creates some serious questions about what our thirty hours are going to stand for. We are supposed to waive those requirements, those thirty hours that's mandated if the students can meet those requirements. There are a lot of strange complications involved here.
Cheryl has a lot of clarifications to make about this, would you prefer that we more to her report, so she can put her two cents in before you give me any further feedback on this?
8. Cheryl Drout (GCP Committee):
I'd like to at least in part discuss where we see General Education headed, taking into account what the General Education Task Force is recommending. The Task Force has in fact created greater flexibility in the implementation of this program. They talk about campus based assessment, which seems to be up to us to define. The Task Force guidelines have been endorsed by the University Senate, at least the Executive of the University Senate.
President Hefner has assured us that the campus will have a reasonable timeframe for the compliance. We have already made some significant strides in discussing our own wishes for changes in General Education, and changes in our GCP program. The committee would like to see that move forward and feels that we can discuss these taskforce recommendations right along with that as we continue to learn exactly what these implementation guidelines are going to be. There's still quite a bit that's open to interpretation at this point.
We are planning to proceed with a request to the chairs from the deans to engage in discussion. I wanted to inform you of that position of the committee. There are a number of documents that are available to everyone for discussion, and we now have a GCP webpage. I have that address here for you so that folks can access that: www.fredonia.edu/gcp; that gives you access to the full Provost Task Force report, a two page summary as well as the GCP Committee reports.
If I can answer any questions about the GCP Committee's perceptions or my interpretations of the Task Force's report I'm willing to do that. I did want to add from one of the issues that came up in discussion earlier, that our reading of the recommendations does suggest that it would be possible to count, for example, the requirements of a regents diploma as meeting some of these criteria under each of these different subject areas. For example in the area of math, it well be that students who come in with a regents diploma might pass out of all of those areas that are required. A large number of these requirements may in fact be met by most of our students when they enter Fredonia.
Chair Browder: Now let's keep two things separate here. One, a discussion of how we as a college proceed with our General Education Reform, the other what advice you might have to give me for this meeting.
Dr. Una Mae Reck: In June the Chief Academic Officers met, and this was a major topic of discussion. This is when the task force made the presentation, which you see now. Another meeting is coming up in October. In terms of a waiver, we think we have a good case. If we don't get a waiver, I don't know what other institution would because we have a Middle States accreditation process dealing with assessment, and that's also assessment of the General Education Program. We had Sparticus Process a couple years before, and also now we have the title three grant, which gives us the resource to actually give us the ability to accomplish what we need to do. That letter for a waiver for fall of 2001 will be sent out this month.
Michael Grady: Two questions, one for Cheryl and one for Ruth. Is the GCP core concept the same thing that was distributed at the last Faculty Council meeting or is it changed?
Chreyl Drout: It was distributed. The only thing that was actually endorsed by Faculty Council was the progress report.
Michael Grady: I was just wondering if there was any evolution in that document yet.
Cheryl Drout: No, it is the same document.
Michael Grady: I didn't quite understand what the second shoe was, another report is coming?
Chair Browder: Yes, more guidelines, more refined guidelines.
Dr. Una Mae Reck: When I got the current guidelines there was some vague wording in the cover memo implying that something was going to be following it up. Nothing has come, so we just need to go on; we can't wait, so we are progressing on.
Chair Browder: I'm not asking for your responses to the guidelines. I'm asking for your suggestions as to how I deal with the Senate itself and its handling of this; that's what I'm concerned with. This strategy which doesn't seem to be consistent, that first we object, then we have accepted this plan as a great victory.
Mac Nelson: Whose we. We haven't accepted it, maybe a few people on the committee have. Politically that's the point that I would make; it's still in no way up for discussion.
Dr. Una Mae Reck: The analysis I see in the switch there is that they see a more flexible type of recommendation. Something campuses can work with and not be so bound. That would be my rational why they have switched.
Chair Browder: That's the victory that's being proclaimed, but I have fearful resolutions that what God giveth God taketh away, and I see it very much in this document.
Minda Rae Amiran: I think one good thing you can do is to talk with as many people as you can and ask them what they are doing about the foreign language requirement in particular. Also, whether they require an American History course, whether they currently require a world history course, whether they currently require a western civilizations course, and all those things which would be very hard for us to provide for everybody and since all of these subjects are covered in high school...
Chair Browder: All of these guidelines are very problematic in that if you look at them, even in the flexibility they give us, we're supposed to interpret them in terms of the general consensus. I think if each department looks at these guidelines you'll begin to realize that there is no such thing as a general consensus in the department as to what these things mean. This is what's worrying me.
Minda Rae Amiran: My point, which I don't think I made clearly at all is, since most of these areas if not all are covered in high school cannot mean that they will accept regents diplomas as a stand-in for all these areas. If there is anything here that some of these requirements might be met prior to entrance, try to sound out who knows what that thinking is. Surely everyone has had a world civilizations course that has a regent's diploma, everybody's had an American history course, and everyone's had some kind of a literature course. They can't mean that.
Chair Browder: The trouble is we don't know. They won't know any more that I will how to read these things. What I intend to do is try to figure out where everybody else is coming from, because all I'm hearing on email is, "lets talk about how we're going to conform to and implement these guidelines." I'm not hearing any, "these things need to be spelled out more clearly" types of complains and I'm going to try to find out just where everybody is.
Dick Ready: Just one observation George about the composition of that advisory task force. As you described it, at least two of the members are affiliated with campus that are utterly unaffected by it. This does not affect the colleges of technology nor are the community colleges, as I understand it.
Cheryl Drout: My understanding is that community colleges are not bound by it, but compliance is encouraged.
Chair Browder: If they want transferability, they have to comply.
Minda Rae Amiran: The real laugh in all of this is if somebody comes here with a two letter degree, AA or AS, we have to give them credit for the thirty hours.
Chair Browder: But of course the pressure on the community colleges is kind of strange because although they are supposed to conform to this if they want their credits to transfer automatically. Everybody knows good and well that we're not going to start turning away transfer students from community colleges that don't comply. We will have our articulation agreements anyhow. I'm not so sure what pressure they are under to comply.
Jan McVicker: I'm absolutely opposed to accepting these guidelines as a done deal. I think it's a failure on the part of all campus governance to pass a resolution against the Board of Trustees for trying to push this over on us and then saying, "Oh, god now that it's so big and so obscure, we have some sort of victory."
I'm really upset about that. On one hand the requirements dumb down our students in terms of watering what kinds skills and competencies and experiences they are going to have, and on the other hand we're celebrating a victory of obscurity. I think it's just a sham, so I would hope that you could at least get your colleagues in faculty governance to talk about it rather than to simply accept this as a done deal.
Chair Browder: My intention is to see if it is possible to mobilize some kind of concerted action or opposition. I don't know what to expect when I get there, but the whole thing baffles me. I see no strategy here on the part of the Senate.
Karen Mills-Courts: Would it help to have some kind of formal resolution from this body for you to carry with you.
Chair Browder: I'm not sure. Given the fact that I have no idea what kind of political position or atmosphere there is going to be when I get there, I would hate to be bound to take some kind of action that would leave us out in the cold, the only people who are opposing. President Hefner had a slight experience with that when this whole thing started if I'm not mistaken.
President Hefner: The State Wide Faculty Senate has come out in support of these guidelines; they have even given, as I gave you a copy of the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, public statements supporting this particular document. That is, at least the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate's position, that this is a perfectly acceptable document, and they intend to go forward and implement it.
They were the ones that decided on the five people that would be on that particular committee. They chose the agricultural technology person and the community college person. That was the Statewide Faculty Senate that did that. They have already gone very far down this particular road, which is why I have suggested that at least there be some caution.
If I'm going to get into a fight, it either has to be over an incredibly significant issue or I have to feel I'm going to win. One, I'm not sure we're going to win on this one, and two, given the vagaries of this document, I'm not sure that it is that significant. We were going to be doing a review of our General Ed. anyway. My suggestion has been, let's go forward and let's put in a General Education program that we think this campus should have and I don't think it will be a major difficulty, I could be wrong, but I don't think it will be.
Chair Browder: It would seem to me that the appropriate response at the Senate meeting would be some motion of censure or disapproval of the Senate Executive Committee rather than attacking the outside.
Jon Kraus: George, I'm quite confused. This statement says here that the Task Force guidelines were endorsed by the University Faculty Senate, what I'm now hearing is that the Executive Committee endorsed it, and not the University Faculty Senate.
Chair Browder: It hasn't met yet. It won't meet until October 15th.
Jon Kraus: Didn't the University Faculty Senate already object to and condemn the General Ed. produced by the Board of Trustees?
Chair Browder: Yes, but then part of the negotiation was that this Provost Committee would be formed to make the guidelines more acceptable or something to that effect.
President Hefner: At the last meeting, based on the recommendations of the Statewide Faculty Senate Executive Committee, the Board of Trustees endorsed the taskforce report, so the Board of Trustees has in sense rescinded their original resolution and has endorsed this taskforce report.
Michael Grady?: There's nothing to prevent us at Fredonia from making requirements that are more severe. They can dumb down the requirements, that's ok really because we can make them more rigorous. I don't think we should really object from that point of view. There are some problematic areas, like Foreign Language that will have an impact.
Jan McVicker: The Provost is planning to develop assessment procedures or priorities which no one has heard about yet, and we're sort of expecting that. It seems to me that until we see how the Provost Office is going to ask campuses to demonstrate compliance... that to me is the other shoe that is waiting to fall. I don't know if you can bring that up George, but I would like to see some discussion on that.
Dick Reddy: Just a real quick observation. I think what we need to do ultimately is to come up with a program that we believe is best for our students and for our institution and secondly to get away with it.
Chair Browder: I think that's the strategy. We will proceed, we will try to put together what we think is a good general education program and we'll try to shoe-horn it in as best we can. The threat is, as was noted that behind this lies several years down the road assessment and some of the other threats that were made in that original document. If you don't comply we will impose standardized tests; we will impose standardized texts and a lot of blah blah blah like that. It's frightening and it's like the sky is falling, but it's a long way off.
Minda Rae Amiran: This is what Sailins came into office saying he was going to do, and no amount of persuasion has persuaded him otherwise. He wants to hire ATS or some other outfit to do multiple choice tests and then he wants to fund campuses on the basis of those scores. I think that all we need to do is drag our feet a lot and wait for this miraculous test to show up. We have our own assessment procedures and it might never come to pass. I don't see how we can stop him from doing it; a lot better people certainly than I am have tried to make him stop this project.
Dr. Una Mae Reck: I have one other observation from the June meeting; I do believe that Peter Sailins has had it up to education. More has happened than what he thought was going to happen. I think he is ready to mend it, and that is really specifically what he said.
Minda Rae Amiran: So you think he may forgo the assessment?
Dr. Una Mae Reck: We are to build in our own assessment. If you read the full document that's on the website there are general guidelines. It does outline the whole document and how we are to submit.
The other thing that was discussed is once you have a proposal, who's going to read the proposal, and that was discussed at the June meeting and the CAO's are pushing very hard that there be a review committee made up of the CAO's of the SUNY institutions. He was very receptive to that. I'm very eager to hear what he says at the October meeting, because in the full guidelines there is a mention of a review committee and it's not as clearly stated as I'd like. We will be pushing for that too.
Amin Sarkar?: Public opinion is in recent years more in favor of science and math where our students are in general lacking. In proportion to the thirty credits, it is only six credits.
Chair Browder: Yes, we will not be speaking on the details of the plan at the Senate. I'm sure that's not what this is about. The question at the Senate as opposed to what we shall be doing here on this campus with our own program is how to act in the Senate itself in terms of their leadership.
If they are pursuing this as a Fabian strategy similar to what we are doing, I suppose you would all agree that I go along with this. However if they are not, if they seem to think that we really are home free and everything has been done right and that we really have a victory. The way I feel after having been encouraged to pass that vote of no confidence and stand together with the Senate and then get this as a result is something I feel a little bit unhappy with as a governance leader. I'm asking if you think it would be at all wise, if there seems to be such a ground swell to participate in some kind of protest within the Senate against their handling of this?
Mac Nelson: Make a noise George.
Dick Reddy: An additional part of that strategy might be to invite Lynn to come here, to come to our next meeting.
Chair Browder: The new chair you're talking about.
President Hefner: Yes, maybe even members of the taskforce to come here. I'd be interested to hear what they think.
Chair Browder: I hope to find out what the faculty members of the task force had to deal with and why they haven't made more noise.
Ruth Antosh: Just a quick comment. Everyone seems to think that what's proposed in foreign language is unreasonable, but I think that probably the same argument that would be made for many of the other subject areas could be made for foreign language. It really depends on how you define basic proficiency. If you want, we can say that most of our students have had basic foreign language instruction in high school. It really depends on what standards we set to define these proficiencies. There are a few students who have not had any foreign language in high school and I think it would not be unreasonable to require them to take one. I would be very interested if you could ask how other campuses are approaching this.
Chair Browder: Yes, if there is a discussion at that detail about the general education program, I will gather all the intelligence I can about what other campuses are doing.
An extension of five minutes was granted.
Cheryl Drout: The GCP Committee would like to publicly congratulate Dean Schwartz on acquiring his title three strengthening institution credit. This is going to make a tremendous difference for the campus, and is wonderful for general education. We are going to be receiving over a half a million dollars over the next five years to support faculty and staff development. Please congratulate him.
7. Dr. Moj Seyedian:
The Senate has been looking for a reaction from the campuses regarding Old Westbury and I'm glad that you already passed a resolution. The Board of Trustees will meet tomorrow in Delhi, so I'm going to fax the resolution today to the Senate.
8. The meeting was adjourned at 5:xxPM
Attendance:
Professional Staff/Management Confidential:
[x] Carolyn Briggs
[x] Sylvia Clarke
[ ] Robert Colegrove
[x] Mike Conley
[x] Vincent Courtney
[x] Marianne Eimer
[x] Lisa Marrano
[x] Carol Schwerk
[x] Joyce Smith
[x] Martha Smith
[x] Terry Tzitzis
Arts, Education, and Humanities:
[x] Ruth Antosh
[x] Minda Rae Amiran
[ ] Patricia Corron
[x] Daniel Ihasz
[x] Scott Johnson
[ ] Kenneth Lucey (On Leave)
[x] Jeanette McVicker
[x] Karen Mills-Courts
[x] Malcolm Nelson
[x] Stephen Rees
[x] Theodore Steinberg
[x] Jackie Swansinger
Natural and Social Sciences:
[ ] Seyed-Mahmoud Agazadeh
[x] Nancy Boynton
[x] Roger Byrne
[x] Michael Grady
[ ] Lucy Kabza
[x] Jon Kraus
[x] Lawrence Maheady
[ ] Kenneth Mantai
[x] Dick Reddy
[x] Jane Romal
[x] Amin Sarkar
[x] Cynthia Smith
[ ] Richard Weist
Student Members:
[x] Jennifer Farnham (SA President)
[x] Shamus Hayes, (VP, SA)
[ ] ____________, Senior Rep.
[ ] ____________, Junior Rep.
[ ] Pam Wright, Sophomore Rep.
[ ] ____________, Freshman Rep.
[ ] ____________, Graduate Rep.
Ex. Officio Member:
[x] Dennis Hefner (President)
[ ] Tracy Bennett (VP, Admin.)
[x] George Browder (Chair, Faculty Council)
[ ] Michael Dmitri (VP, Student Affairs)
[x] Len Faulk (Associate VP, Academic Affairs)
[x] Nancy Gee (Council Vice-Chair)
[x] Jean Malinoski (VP, Development)
[x] Una Mae Reck (VP, Academic Affairs)
[X] Patrick Rocheleau (Council Secretary)
[x] Paul Schwartz (Dean, Arts & Humanities)
[x] Mojtaba Seyedian (Faculty Senator)
[x] Stephen Stahl (Dean, NSS & PS)
[x] Idalia Torres (Governance Chair)