Faculty Council
Minutes of the meeting of April 12th 1999
Chair George Browder called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM.
1. A quorum was present and the Agenda was approved unanimously.
2. The minutes of the March 8th 1999 meeting were approved unanimously.
3. Dr. Dennis L. Hefner (President's report):
I Just have a couple of real quick items. One, I wanted to just express my appreciation to all of the faculty and staff that came forward and volunteered their time and energies to assist the Albanians with the difficulties that have been occurring over in Kosovo. I have received a number of emails from faculty and staff. I know we've put together a committee and that that committee is doing some things to try and assist. I did want to go on the record to commend that. The second item is on freshman applications. We still are running about eight and a half ahead and we are so far ahead and the quality of the pool has been so good that we have a letter going out to high school counselors in New York. We're letting them know that if they have any really good students that they want to be coming to Fredonia, they had better get them to get their applications in immediately. We will be closing for freshman applications on May 1st. That is in the works. The machinery is started. Notifications have gone to the system office, so that will in fact be occurring. We used to. Back about five or six years ago, we were closing early. We haven't been, but we are going back to that now, and I think that's a good sign.
I did want to let everyone know that about a week ago our Students in Free Enterprise team from the school of business went to the regional and once again they have won the regionals. This is the second year in a row and they are going off to Nashville for National competitions. It's always nice to win regionals.
The legislature went back into session today. They've been gone the last two weeks. Where they are is, both the Assembly and the senate have passed resolutions indicating what they think the budget should be, so we have a broad idea of where they are. The Assembly in higher education is a much better bill than is the senate, which usually is the case. The senate has however put in some features that are critical to us, the senate resolution, including all the coverage for the collective bargaining and some other components. The Assembly basically provided for the fifty-one point nine million that the system had asked for and then had some additional items beyond that. During the next several weeks, there will be committees that are coming together and will be reaching some type of consensus and hopefully the bills will start going through. Exactly the timing we just don't know. They just came back into session today. I was making calls and couldn't get any good word on the timing, but it is moving forward and we should be in reasonable shape for next year when the whole process is all said and done.
The final item that I wanted to get to, I promised I'd finish in five minutes or less, is really a corollary to go along with the remarks that your fearless leader of the Faculty Council gave at the all campus meeting. He was suggesting that there needed to be a great deal of involvement with the Faculty Council. The number one reason for involvement in the Faculty Council is, of course, the Spring Fiesta. This is a tradition. For those that are new to the Faculty Council, each year at the end of the year after the last Faculty Council meeting there is a reception with a Mexican theme, so it's called a Fiesta, over at the Presidents House. All the Faculty Council members, we ask the department chairs to join us too. Just put it on your calendar for after the very next meeting, so I did want to at least get that in there. If there is any questions, I'll take them at this time.
Dick Reddy: Just a quick thing, I've had a lot people ask questions about retirement incentives and basically what I've heard for a long time was: yes, almost for sure there's going to be one, but no sense of timing...
President Hefner: Right, in fact, what I had been hearing up until a week ago was that there might not be one. However, in the last couple of days, we now have confirmation that there will be bills introduced in both the Assembly and the Senate and the expectation is that they will go through and that they will be approved. Hopefully the Governor will sign them. The word that I have is that it is identical to the bill that we had for this year. That would mean that the timing for faculty retirement would be related to the academic year and the timing for the remainder could be set at four flexible times. This year, I can't remember, it was around January or February when that window opened. It's a ninety-day window that opens. That does now seem to be going forward. There was a lot of talk that it might not be, but that seems to have gone by the wayside this last week.
Michael Grady: There is a rumor circulating about that a road is to be built between Steel Hall and Fort Apache.
President Hefner: I know, I saw that rumor on Proftalk. That is a rumor I started. I'm the original source of the rumor. About a year ago, it was actually in front of the Faculty Council Executive Committee. I said that at some point I think it's going to make sense to put a road that would help with some of the traffic both coming into the campus and going out of the campus. That would be near the forest, but actually would not go through the forest. We have an area out there I call the swamp land, that would actually I think make some good sense. There is no money in this five-year capital construction. It's merely an idea for this in my head and it would need to go through the Capital Construction Committee and everything else. It might be a part of the next five-year plan.
Michael Grady: I think you need to consider that that hill is used by all the area children for sledding.
President Hefner: Oh, yeah. That consideration was already considered and as a result, mainly due to the natatorium, the sledding hill will be repositioned so that it will be going in slightly different direction. I know better than to get between this community and its sledding. Don't worry the sledding hill is staying, I'll guarantee that.
Ken Mantai: Speaking of roads, if we take that spur that goes around Gregory and extend it around to Ring Road, that would take the congestion off the little walkway where people are crossing and delivery vans are coming in and garbage trucks are backing up. Someone is going to get hurt and we're lucky they haven't. That's a real problem.
President Hefner: Tracy Bennett is in the back of the room. All thoughts on parking or roads please send them to Tracy and he'll bring them to the appropriate committees.
4. Dr. Una Mae Reck (VP Academic Affairs):
I just have a couple of things. I just wanted to let everyone know that we have completed fourteen faculty searches. We are in the midst of interviewing the third candidate for the Associate Vice President of Information Technology this week. Towards the end of the month, we will be interviewing the candidates for the University Librarian Position and the Director of the Williams Center. Jack Croxton is now going to talk about Middle States.
4a. Jack Croxton (Middle States Review):
I just wanted to give everybody a quick update on the Middle States process. As most of you are probably aware, the task groups have been going out collecting lots of information from our students and on our students that they are now compiling into their reports. First drafts have already come in. They've gone to the Steering Committee.
The various task groups are now updating their reports. There is an awful lot of data that they've been compiling and I think it's going to end up in a very interesting report. It will provide some kind of unique perspectives on our students. Information that I think we can use in the future when it comes to designing our programs and trying to accommodate them and maximize their four year experience here.
Originally, we had thought of having some informational meetings at the end of April. However, the task groups have been so busy working on their reports they felt it would probably be better for them to continue on with that rather than have these meetings. The final draft of the report will be distributed to the entire campus beginning in the fall semester. Everybody on campus will have an opportunity to participate in hearings. To take a look at the recommendations that are growing out of these reports and to provide us with feedback as we work on the final draft of the report.
This will then be sent out to the visiting team, which will be arriving on campus some time in the spring semester of the year two thousand. We are looking forward to the reports coming in, the full draft being prepared and hoping to get plenty of input from everybody on campus when the material is distributed next fall. Any questions? Thank you.
5. Chair Browder (Chairpersons Report):
I have no report, but before we move to old business, I would like to get your approval or suggestions about something that pertains to my role as moderator.
I have always been concerned with the, sort of, lack of efficiency and sometimes even clarity in our faculty discussion. Providing some better structure is what I have in mind here. Roberts Rules of Order for instance specifies that no one should speak more than twice to a single motion, however that has not been our past practice. It also does require that speaker's alternate pro and con on issues; we've been loose on that.
What I'd like to suggest is a modified version of that. As I said, our discussions tend to get all over the place. Someone speaking to an issue will raise a point and then someone who speaks next raises a different point and things drift around until somebody comes back to the first point again by which time everyone is somewhat confused. What I would like to do is recognize the first speaker on any particular item and then identify the point that that point is speaking to. Then ask if someone would like to speak counter that point before we go on to another speaker and try to keep the discussion focused a little bit in that manor.
Unless you object I would do that and I would restrict anyone speaking on a particular sub-topic of the issue to only speaking twice. I would also ask, especially today, that people please try not to either repeat themselves or repeat previously made points in the course of the debate unless they are trying to reinforce them or strengthen them. Does anyone want to object to what I propose?
Ok, thank you; then we'll move on to old business at which point, the ROTC motion can be taken off the table if someone wishes to do so.
A motion that the ROTC issue be taken off the table was moved and seconded.
Chair Browder: The general gist, of course, is to accept the contract from St. Bonaventure and the ROTC program there. To host the first two years of the ROTC program here on this campus.
Dick Weist: I wasn't here last time because I was at a conference and I reviewed the conversation you had about this last time and I would like to say that I think Ted Steinberg made a very good point. I looked over the curriculum and I think it is quite a weak curriculum and I don't think it is the kind of curriculum that is going to improve the academic reputation of Fredonia. I would vote against the ROTC program.
Chair Browder: Thank you. The present focus is the strengths or weaknesses of the curricular aspects of the program. Would somebody like to speak in favor of the program on that point?
Robert Colegrove: I would like to know what you feel is weak primarily?
Chair Browder: By the way, asking questions does not count as speaking. That doesn't count against you.
Dick Weist: I can read the course objectives of these various courses. They tend to be quite redundant. They tend to be mostly filled with military buzzwords. Item number one under course MS101 is to provide understanding of the branches and organization of the US Army. Number two the duties of an officer, a non commissioned officer etceteras. Number three, customs and traditions. I have the impression that this program is something that one of our graduates could learn in approximately a two or three month summer program that preceded their introduction into those areas, if they decided to go on to become an officer in the Army. I guess I would like to know where the challenges are. Who's asking me for the weaknesses, can you tell me where the academic challenges are in this program.
Robert Colegrove: What I was asking you, you said you would vote against it, I was wondering what areas did you think were not? Is that it? Just in that one program?
Dick Weist: It's pretty much redundant. These ideas are repeated throughout. It's sort of like Duties of an Officer 101, Duties of an Officer 102, 103, 104.
Michael Grady: It's hard to tell from the written materials exactly what the level of the courses is going to be. I'd just like to point out that Dean Stahl has pointed out that at his previous university the course on map reading and navigation that was given as part of the ROTC program was actually more rigorous than the similar courses given in the Geo Science department there. It's not an established fact that these courses are actually less rigorous and I would also point out that quite a few of the ideas in the ROTC program speak to having students do a lot of public speaking which is something our curriculum needs more of. Students are not allowed to just sit like a stone in ROTC courses. They have to participate, so I think there are some positive features that we are actually trying to incorporate in some of our other courses.
Chair Browder: Would anyone else like to speak to the issue of the weaknesses or strengths of the curriculum?
George Sebouhian: I think if our courses are so week, it's up to us to improve them, not to introduce a stronger course through the military. I don't know why we would have to do it that way.
Chair Browder: Would anyone wish to speak for the curriculum?
Dick Reddy: Just an observation that essentially what they are doing from a sociological perspective, which is something that I know a little bit about, is that they are trying to train people how to perform a role. To a very large degree that is the kind of thing that is done in a number of our other professional studies programs and to a lesser degree in out curriculum as a whole. We're trying to teach some very basic things about what their discipline is what the history and background of their discipline is in some fashion. What it is to function within a discipline. You have to have people have some knowledge of military history in order to be able to understand what takes place, what duties, obligations, and responsibilities are.
I don't think it's extraordinarily weak to be doing this. In fact, it's essential for someone doing something along these lines as part of a training program, I think none of us would wish to have, in any occupation without a clue as to where their occupation came from. What kinds of duties and roles and responsibilities were associated with that.
Chair Browder: Anyone wish to speak against the strengths or weaknesses of the curriculum?
Karen Mills-Courts: I think this point is probably a valid one. We are not a military academy and this is not a part of our mission for the college, any of the things being listed. I am just glancing at what the leadership class consists of and I have to wonder what advanced camp is or why this campus should support a lab on riffle bayonet fighting. I would suggest that is not appropriate for a liberal arts college nor does it have academic credentials.
Robert Colegrove: Which course is that on?
Karen Mills-Courts: This is the Battalion Consolidative Lab Schedules for 1999.
Robert Colegrove: But for which course is that for?
Karen Mills-Courts: It doesn't say on the sheet. It says for MS101, 202, 302 and 402.
Chair Browder: Any further discussion of the curriculum?
Len Faulk: I would just clarify that the labs here are the parts that we're not giving credit for. The labs are non-credit. I guess in putting together the curriculum proposal as I've run through it, there are a number of knowledge domains that I think are beyond what Dick was talking about. Leadership theory, leadership mentoring. How do you indeed manage other people. There are lots of skills that are found and theories that are found. There are a range of skills that we could learn presented in a variety of formats.
Chair Browder: Would someone like to speak against the quality? Just George? You've spoken once, just a moment George, does any one else want to speak against the quality issue? Ok George.
George Sebouhian: All of the so-called skills are contained within the envelope of the military and the purpose is a military purpose. It isn't just to teach a whole range of possible options a person might consider, or skills a person might know in terms of almost any other situation, in business or perhaps in some other field like academia. It has to do with the military, and we know the military is run by a man at the top and lots of other people in between and the grunts that fight. Totally absolutely in terms of governance. There is no democracy in the military.
Ken Mantai: Is there democracy in any business?
Jane Romal: There is a lot of teamwork in business.
Chair Browder: Be recognized before you speak please. You would like to speak now against the point just he made?
Jane Romal: No, I was just saying that in business, there is teamwork and there are matrix organizations. There is not always a hierarchy that you expected say ten, fifteen years ago.
Ted Steinberg: I would just like to ask a question, maybe Len could answer. All the departments are required to come up with assessment plans. How would these courses be assessed and how would this department be assessed?
Len Faulk: Good question. They would be expected to do what any department would do. They're not our department so there are some differences. The first two years are on campus; we would expect student assessment of faculty and some sharing. We're essentially a cross listing. It's not a department, which we are directly supervising. I think for quality control reasons we should have assessments yes. That would be an expectation of the courses here on campus.
Bob Deming: I have a delayed question. I believe the faculty handbook provides that all courses on this campus will be evaluated by the students. Will these courses be evaluated by the students?
Ken Lucey: I think that's a request that we can make if it's not done at this point in time. We haven't discussed specifically that issue.
Bob Deming: Would any students in this rigidly hierarchical situation feel totally free to give a totally unbiased and subjective reaction?
Ken Lucey: If it's a confidential survey, I don't see why not.
Bob Deming: So it's not presently required?
Ken Lucey: We haven't talked about that specific issue in terms of whether it's required at St. Bonaventure, I don't know.
Bob Deming: Are there any other aspects of these courses taught by persons who have not gone through recruitment and retention policies of regular faculty? Are there any other processes by which these people would be subject as whatever kind of faculty status they have to the same criteria and evaluation that we use faculty, or are they totally autonomous and responsible only to the Army?
Ken Lucey: They are not indeed our faculty. They're St. Bonaventure faculty and professors in the Military Science department, so we are not hiring them or meeting a personnel goal over them. Obviously if they are part of the military, there are military obligations.
Bob Deming: So if a hypothetical student had a complaint about some aspect of the course, that complaint would not go to any department or chairperson...
Ken Lucey: It would come to me as Dean of Interdisciplinary Studies.
Bob Deming: The gist of the responses has convinced me, what I was already convinced of, that this is a separate unequal aspect of our curriculum over which we have virtually no governing control, and no assurance that students in those courses will be evaluated in the same way as students in our courses.
Len Faulk: I would suspect that the instructors in these courses correspond to adjuncts as we often use in curricular Fredonia courses. There has been a new policy put in place where adjuncts are supposed to be evaluated externally each semester. My question is would that policy apply to these instructors as well, although they're not Fredonia adjuncts, they are St. Bonaventures'.
Dick Reddy: I'd just like to observe in terms of the question of quality control that it is a bit of a stretch to believe that the military does not wish to have the best instructors it can for these potential officers. That they don't try to offer the best instruction that they could, it is my understanding, at least historically, that they have tried to have highly competent people, highly able people.
They consider this to be a significant investment that they are making in these resource programs in the hopes of being able to find good people and to nurture these people. That the academic trends of these programs are low quality, I don't think is fair. To me the basic issue is fairness in our discussion and fairness in our evaluation of these sorts of things and I think we may be faulting them in an area that just really isn't fair to fault them in.
Jan McVicker: I just had a question. Would students who are not enrolled in the program be allowed to take these courses?
Len Faulk: The first two years they could, one credit per semester.
Robert Colegrove: I'm just trying to make sure which courses will be taught on the Fredonia campus and which ones will be taught at St. Bonaventure. MS101 and 102 will be on our campus, 301, 302, 401, 402 are on the St. Bonaventure campus.
Len Faulk: and 201 and 201.
Robert Colegrove: So there are four courses that will be taught on the Fredonia campus and the rest will be taught on the St. Bonaventure campus.
Ted Steinberg: I have a question for Dick Reddy. You might well be correct in what you say, but what I wonder is if there is no system set up for evaluation or assessment how would we know.
Dick Reddy: It strikes me that we are assuming that there is no system set up for assessment. We don't know that. That's one of the points that apparently the college has not looked into. These people are doing these jobs; they are in these positions in order to do a strong job.
I don't know a great deal about the military personally. I know virtually nothing about it in terms of actual experience, but I do understand there are ratings done of people on a highly regular basis. It is also my understanding that these are often times highly sought after positions that they see as potential positive career moves. Essentially these people have a great deal of motivation to do well, just as I think most of us are highly motivated to do the very best job that we can do in whatever teaching we're doing. I think it's wrong to have the idea that somehow these people are not motivated themselves or that they don't have systems in place to evaluate how effective the performance is. Indeed their supervisor's I'm confident spend probably more time worrying about the competency and abilities and performance of the people that they supervise than our supervisors themselves do.
Karen Mills-Courts: I think the question here is not whether or not these courses meet the criteria of the military, but whether they meet the criteria of a liberal arts college campus. Of the criteria by which we would judge any other department.
Michael Grady: I'd like to point out that a great many liberal arts colleges do have this program currently and in fact, maybe not everybody realizes that we already have this program through Canisius College.
What we're asking is just to make it more convenient for students to take the program by switching affiliation to St. Bonaventure. We've already made the decision a long time ago to have a ROTC program, in fact we have it right now. Another misperception I would like to correct is that last time it was suggested that most of the students in this program are weak students. I would like to point out that our very best Engineering student in recent years was in this program through Canisius College. If that had not been available to him he would not have come to Fredonia, and we would have missed having such a very good student. I can remember other good students that were in this program years ago as well. It's not true that it's only weak students that seem to be attracted to this program as was suggested last time.
George Sebouhian: I think that the discussion has been skirting part of what this is about. I don't think we need to demean students, whatever organization they belong too. What bothers me is, and I need to address that first before I get to my main point, and that is to read from a draft of the published agreement. It's the first paragraph, second line, "a single ROTC unit was established at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Fredonia effective 15 February 1999" and the plural was used, we.
Now, the main point I want to get into, what bothers me is that all of these points are negotiable. As I read on page three of that same document, "to recognize the senior military officer as professor of military science" that is continued under C on page three, "to arrange for the scheduling and military classes", "St. Bonaventure University to be a representative of the department of military science at St. Bonaventure as maintained by the PMS at St. Bonaventure University. SUNY Fredonia committees whose recommendations would directly affect the..." We have two things happening here. We have a Professor raised to full status who has not gone through what Ed Steinberg raised a question about awhile ago which has not been satisfactorily answered and I will predict never will be. Second they are being given, these whoever will be on this campus, a kind of entry to committees that subjectively who decides whether these committees will impact on ROTC or not, on these programs. But last of all to grant academic credit applicable toward graduation. Three points, all negotiable. There are campuses that do not grant academic credit for these classes, there are campuses in which there is no academic standing for the faculty and they are not regarded as professors of as faculty of the campus. Those are negotiable points. They are not necessarily points which we must accept.
Chair Browder: Ok, I think George has broadened the discussion beyond the quality of the curriculum, would anyone like to speak to any of those issues he raises?
President Hefner: I think I should speak to the side issue, that I think there's an implication that something was signed on February 15. I want to assure you that nothing has been signed on this particular program.
We have an existing program with Canisius. St. Bonaventure has come forward wanting the program to be transferred from Canisius to St. Bonaventure, and there is actually some interest on the part of Canisius to transfer it to St. Bonaventure.
When we met with the military, the ROTC representatives, we wanted an advanced copy. We said, give us a standard copy of an agreement that you have, putting our name in so we have something to look at before the meeting. That was what they sent and that was merely the date that corresponded to either a phone conversation or the meeting here on campus, I'd have to go back and look at my agenda. But do not worry, I have not signed anything.
It would have been possible, given we already have a program with Canisius to say, yes you can teach the courses here on campus. However, I didn't think that would be a wise move on my part, nor would it have given you an opportunity to have input into the process. What I, in fact, told the chairman of Faculty Council was that I'm brining this forward, and, if it passes, I certainly will sign it and if it doesn't pass, I won't be signing it. That's what we have done and that's where we are at this particular point. I think it's a good topic to have discussion from, I really do, I think this is what Faculty Council is all about.
Robert Colegrove: When you spoke of campuses that do not give academic standing, which campuses are those?
George Sebouhian: I thought you would ask that. I did do a search on this subject when we first went through this. You can take my word on faith or reject it, whatever you wish.
Jan McVicker: Just to let you know, this came out of the committee. In the past there were up to a hundred and twenty students in programs. My question has to do with the transportation issue, in transporting the students in the third and fourth years to St. Bonaventure. I'm curious if the enrollment were fifty or a hundred students, would Fredonia be responsible for transporting all those students over the semester.
Len Faulk. A hundred and twenty was the enrollment in all four years, so let's say it's thirty times four. So at peak enrollment, there are more freshmen and Sophomores, some drop out and those that actually sign a commitment to military service becomes less, so I wouldn't expect there would be as many even at the old program with thirty a year. You're probably looking at between fifteen and twenty.
Jan McVicker: We have so many students say in education, we need to be going back and forth during student teaching, we don't offer transportation for those kinds of commitments.
President Hefner: The contract that the campus is signing does not provide transportation, that is not something we we're asked for nor was it something that we suggested. That issue did come up in the Academic Affairs council, and Faculty Council suggested the campus should look into it. That did not come from the contract.
Bob Deming: This is a question to Len. In the second paragraph, "while the teachers of the military science classes and labs are faculty of the military science department of St. Bonaventure University, they will be expected to adhere to academic policies and procedures at Fredonia. I'd like clarified what those academic policies and procedures at Fredonia include. All and policies and procedures that are in the catalog and the Faculty Handbook?
Len Faulk: I think all procedures related to student rights, academic rights, fielding grievances, and processes, you're right there are all kinds of processes. Essentially they are coming here; we're giving them space to teach a course form another campus. In terms of our general procedures for appeals, our students would continue to have the same rights in those classes.
Bob Deming: Have the faculty of the military science department at St. Bonaventure University reviewed our policies and procedures in the college catalog and the Faculty Handbook?
Len Faulk: Never.
Bob Deming: Then why are they agreeing to and why are we agreeing to?
Chair Browder: More questions or comments?
Pam Wright: Have any of the faculty members approached students to find out their point of view?
Jan McVicker: I have had students' say it should be allowed. I've had students' say it should not be allowed. I had a class that was really divided. A lot of students raised points about the leadership and financial assistance aspects. Those seemed to be the two overwhelming issues with them.
Pam Wright: Len Faulk went to the Student Association meeting last Thursday and after he left we had a little discussion about it, and the general consensus of the assembly was that yes we are for it. There would be one more element that will entice more people to come to this college.
Mike Dmitri: I'd like to mention, just to add to that, the Student Affairs Committee invited Len Faulk to come. We had a fairly critical discussion, about forty-five minutes. There are faculty, there are staff and there are students. The Students tend to be the leadership within SA.
Ted Steinberg: I have an informational question. Would it be possible for us to go with this program if we removed college credit from it? That is we would have the program, students could do ROTC, but not get college credit for it.
Len Faulk: I don't know exactly what the response would be. It's obviously more attractive to students and obviously, St. Bonaventure if there is some credit made available. In the end, I'm not sure they would say no completely to that either.
George Sebouhian: Do Canisius students currently get Fredonia credit?
Len Faulk: At Canisius, the courses that are taken are transferred back to Fredonia.
President Hefner: The program has always had grades. It was at last meeting that there was a vote taken that for this program it would be credit, no credit without bearing a letter grade. That would be the way the contract would be going forward.
Chair Browder: A motion to that effect to amend the contract could certainly be made if someone wishes to do so.
George Sebouhian: The term freedom was a bit premature. I can't help but thinking of the word sophistry. In part one under field B, homosexual conduct policy. It describes what is meant by that and I'm talking now about freedom. "The homosexual conduct and the homosexual act, a statement that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts." It then goes on to an entry on the consequences of this. "I will be dis-enrolled in this ROTC program if any one of the following is made, (1) I have engaged or have attempted to engage or have solicited to engage in a homosexual act or acts, (2) I have made a statement that demonstrates a propensity or attempt to engage in homosexual acts," I wonder who is going to judge that one. Also we were told that the uniform code of military justice would not be applied to the students, but at the this document there is a US Army Cadet book. Unless I can be corrected on this matter, this would apply to the third and fourth year students.
Chair Browder: George has focused the debate on the issue of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military. Does anyone which to...
Bob Deming: At the very end, the last page of this document, "I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same (the constitution, etc.) and to the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice." Followed by a very strange phrase, "so help me God."
Chair Browder: This is what you are identifying as the Cadet Oath, right?
Bob Deming: Yes, this is taken at the third year, when the cadet accepts the scholarship?
Chair Browder: That's what I understand, and George is right, there seems to be a contradiction there.
Len Faulk: Anyone in the advanced course is contracting to be a part of the military upon graduation.
Chair Browder: Would anyone like to speak to the issues that George has raised?
Jackie Swansigner: This is just a clarification, in terms of the oath. It is indeed taken the third year. If in the first and second year you decide that you don't want to join, you are free with no obligation whatsoever and you get to keep the monies that have been spent on you. That's one of the reasons the program is attractive for students. The oath is not binding until the third year and then it is only binding after graduation in terms of the court of military law.
Bob Deming: I need some clarification on that. It sounds to me like the oath goes into effect when you take the scholarship in the third year, so you are operating on the principle of the oath in the third year and the fourth year.
Chair Browder: There does seem to be some definite contradiction here.
Jackie Swansinger: You don't fall into the legal definition until after graduation. You don't go to court martial, not until after graduation.
Bob Deming: Unless you address your senior cadet officer saying, "I'm gay". In which case you're out.
Jackie Swansinger: After the third year, you are now committed to your second forty thousand dollar investment.
Karen Mills-Courts: I would like to remind you that I believe it to be radically unethical to offer feed and comfort to any program, which a student cannot finish or succeed in as a result of his or her sexual preference. It goes against absolutely everything this college has stood for for many many years.
Chair Browder: Does anyone wish to speak on the other side of this issue?
Dick Readdy: Just an observation. Clearly, the military is not a perfect institution. At least that's clear to me. It may not be clear to everybody here, but I think most of us would agree that it's not a perfect institution and that there are patterns of prejudice and discrimination that are long standing. Ideally, I suspect that many of us, perhaps all of us, would wish to see change in some fashion. Improvements probably have been made. There is a ways to go on that particular issue. On the other hand when one takes a look at any number of other institutions there is ample evidence of a substantial amount of prejudice and discrimination. Among some of them when it comes to homosexual behavior and also in terms of discrimination against women that are far more blatant and far more problematic than perhaps exits on a campus such as ours. To expect that the military be a perfect institution I don't think is realistic.
Mac Nelson: Dick is correct, as he almost always is that there are other imperfect institution that have sexist opinions, but we are not asking them to come teach campuses on our campus.
Dick Weist: I'm concerned that this program is too exclusive, so that not all of my students are able to be a part of this program because of a characteristic of their personality. Our students compete, they go to graduate schools and some of them are excluded because they don't have high enough GRE's or some other reason like that. I can understand reasons like that. I may not agree with them, but I can understand them. Inviting a program in that excludes students because of a sexual preference is not the kind of program that I would like to see here. When the students considered the pros and cons of this, did you consider that you might make Fredonia a less desirable place by including a program, which excludes this group of students?
Pam Wright: We did not look at that, we looked at it as more of a positive thing that those people who were interested in an ROTC program that Fredonia was an option. We didn't, obviously, look at it as extensively as we are now, so I really can't answer your question.
Dick Weist: Can you see the possibility that students would see Fredonia as a less desirable place because it had a program that excludes them up-front?
Pam Wright: Are you talking about just those that are interested in ROTC programs or are you talking about...
Dick Weist: No, just students who are looking at coming to Fredonia.
Pam Wright: Then they would probably look at every other campus that had a ROTC program that way. I don't know the number of campuses that have a ROTC program.
Dick Weist: 800 as partnerships, 300 as full-blown ROTC programs.
Pam Wright: Then to me, it's quite obvious that they really don't. If that's not their program of interest, they don't care. If I'm not looking for an ROTC program I'd be more concerned with my area of study.
Michael Grady: I don't think having a ROTC program really effects the students who are not in the program. I'd also like to point out that the military does discriminate against people who are too short, too tall, people with athsma, flat feet, there are a lot of seemingly strange requirements that no graduate school would discriminate against, but the military does have some special requirements in that respect. It's not for every student and not every student would qualify for this program.
On the other hand, I think we should maybe listen to the students. Some students want this program. It does not produce any negative effect on other students to have this program, so I don't understand why we shouldn't provide this opportunity for the students who want to avail themselves of it.
Bob Deming: This is not a question; this is a statement. In the earlier discussion when I asked the Associate Vice President about the faculty of military science adhering to the academic policies and procedures at Fredonia, he indicated that they would have to. I would be very surprised if our Faculty Handbook did not in some place say that this institution does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. How is the military science faculty of St. Bonaventure possibly going to adhere to the academic policy, which violates the military policy?
Chair Browder: Does anyone know if any such statement exists in the handbook?
President Hefner: Just to clarify this issue, and having been on other campuses with the same discussions. What I am told is that ROTC does not discriminate against anyone, however when students come up for commission that's when there can be discrimination occurring. It is my understanding that ROTC does not discriminate, that does not mean the military doesn't.
Discussion was closed by a unanimous vote and the ROTC program was passed by an 18 to 14 vote, as amended to preclude credit towards the cumulative grade point average.
Robert Colegrove: I'd just like to state something for any person who raised their hand in favor of this. We are an institution of higher learning, and it's our job to challenge these people and work with these people to try and change their lives. I voted yes, and if I were to sit there and just say, I agree with some of the policies that are in the military, I'd be wrong. I think it's our job to work them and educate them as well as our students, because if we want our military to change we're going to need these students.
George Sebouhian: I think our job is to continue to oppose ROTC on this campus.
6. Moj Seyedian (Faculty Senate):
We have a motion before you. The date of the press conference is May 13th.
Chair Browder: From the information that I'm provided, through the council of governance leaders, so far seventeen institutions have signed onto this motion in various forms or other, either through their faculty governance, through the executive committee of their faculty governance or through the executive board of their union or a combination of these three. Oneonta meets today as we do and we have been told to please report, it's not too late. Geneseo meets tomorrow, Buffalo State does not meet until the 16th, but their UUP board has signed onto the motion. It seems to me that we have a motion on the floor for support.
Dick Reddy: Just a couple of comments. I put together a sheet that was available as people came in that described the facts. I believe the UUP executive board statewide did approve this resolution last week. The UUP executive board on our campus met this afternoon at noon and shortly there after did approve this as well.
Ken Lucey: Chancellor Ryan has, in his document, implied that there is some linkage between the Senate and the UUP, and has a thought that this was being done in service of the cross negotiation process that's going on. I can't see the connection myself, but I would want to hear what Professor Reddy's ideas are on that.
Dick Reddy: I addressed that in that sheet. I can't say some things that may be helpful here. My first realization within UUP was the outrage that occurred during the middle part of December, when the Board of Trustees did approve a new general college curriculum without real involvement.
There were a number of resolutions developed during that time in various campuses throughout the state. They we're fairly detailed indicating the kinds of concerns that people had. There is absolutely no linkage, that I am aware of whatsoever, between negotiations. I think it's preposterous to suggest that there is a linkage between negations and any action along these lines. I thought very hard once I saw the facts and information in the Chancellor's statements to see if there was any shred of truth to what was being said. I wouldn't want to mislead anybody if there was a hint of some truth there based on my experience I'd want to tell you that. There wasn't, but I was still concerned, so I called a close colleague of mine who is the vice president for academics for UUP statewide. I asked him if there was anything at all that I might have missed that would suggest that there was any kind of linkage with negotiations. He said there was none as well. In fact, I think it's probably fair to say that this issue, this question did not come up whatsoever. It was never a part of the discussions that took place at any level within UUP.
Our concern was that we felt something wrong was taking place, specifically around the curriculum issues, but also in a variety of other issues and that we shared a common interest with the Faculty Senate. The idea that the Chancellor has gotten that some how or other UUP has seduced the Senate into doing something that's awful is, to me, incredible. The Senate is fully capable of making its own decisions, and as I understand it has been a full partner in his process moving forward.
Ken Lucey: My own sense is that the passage of this, which I see as inevitable, would adversely affect negations. Could you comment on that?
Dick Reddy: We talked a little bit about this at our executive board meeting. If there was a discussion about it, that would have certainly been one of the issues that could have come up. Clearly, as a union, our principle obligation is to negotiate contracts that are favorable to the membership. In reality, as I understand it, the negotiation process is moving along progressively, there is no problem. As my note suggested, we do not negotiate with the Board of Trustees. We negotiate with the Governors office and Employee Relations even though the Chancellor makes a point in his facts that we are choosing to make this as part of a negotiation tactic, which we are not. We don't negotiate with them. There are SUNY representatives there; they are not members of the board of trustees. It's inconceivable to me, that this charge makes any sense whatsoever.
Ken Lucey: So you're saying it will not adversely effect negotiations.
Dick Reddy: It is doubtful and it has nothing to do with our negotiations. The only person that I'm aware of who's come up with this theory is the Chancellor and other people who are associated with them.
Jan McVicker: I'm really pleased that you've brought this document to us. I was really disturbed by the chancellors comments which, it seems to me, imply not just a threat to the University Senate but that there were even threats to presidents of campuses, the line on page two and the last paragraph.
Michael Grady: I personally feel it's a mistake for the Union and the Senate to have a joint declaration. I think it makes it actually weaker than if they had made separate declarations and it does give the appearance, when I get a letter coming from the University Senate on University Senate stationary that starts out sisters and brothers. It does give the appearance that the Union has, in some sense, taken over the Senate. It is important to avoid appearances even if there is no actual fact there. I would like to ask Moj whether there was any discussion as to why join with the union. Why not have a separate declaration of more or less the same thing, but why join with the union.
Moj Seyedian: I don't know.
Michael Grady: There was no debate at the last Senate meeting?
Moj Seyedian: No.
Michael Grady: So how did it happen then? It wasn't the senators that decided this as a vote?
Moj Seyedian: It happened after the last meeting.
Michael Grady: So it was decided by the leadership alone.
Moj Seyedian: Yes, the Executive Committee of the Senate.
Dick Reddy: There was a determination both by UUP leadership and by the Faculty Senate leadership after both met toward the end of January. After that meeting there was a sense that it would be desirable to do something and to find something that could in fact be done.
As Moj is suggesting, the Senate itself has not voted on this and will not be voting on it as an entity until April 22nd. UUP's Executive Board has approved it but our policy making body is the Delegate Assembly and they will not be voting on it technically until May 7th or 8th. This is part of an ongoing process, in fairness, and it is certainly expected to be an entirely democratic process. Groups can approve or not approve as they see fit. There is no guarantee that our Delegate Assembly will vote for it, although the odds are fairly good.
I certainly don't want to predict what's going to happen in the Faculty Senate, but my understanding is that there is strong support in the Senate as well for this. I might suggest that I didn't use that language either. I'm going to be completing my seventh year as UUP president on our campus; I am not running for re-election. I challenge any of you over the years to have found me to ever use the phrase "Brothers and Sisters" and "In Solidarity". Indeed, although you don't know it, I took that out of an overwhelmingly large number of letters, which our president has sent, which always started "Brother and Sister" and almost always ended "In Solidarity". I took the editorial liberty in innumerable instances to remove those.
Chair Browder: In further answer to the question, when Dick and I first got communications on this we were both taken by surprise and befuddled by the whole process and upset by the way it came out. The Chancellor has been able to put his particular spin on the issue. It does seem that the strategy is to raise the issue, allow the constituencies to either sign on or not before either the Senate or the Union acts on it as a matter of policy. This is our chance to cast our vote for or against this issue. At least that's the way I understand it.
Dick Weist: I have a question on all of these points except one. Point number six, violating its own policies, is the point that I understand. The other points I'm not so clear on. I'd like to take some time and start with number five. What is the evidence that the Board of Trustees has disregarded Affirmative Action guidelines?
Dick Reddy: Essentially in the hiring process. Rather than doing affirmative action searches, we've had a Chancellor, Associate Chancellor's, Vice Chancellors and whatever have hired without affirmative action searches rather systematically in the filling of major positions in system administration.
Dick Weist: Is there something about the nature of the Chancellors position that causes an unusual constraint, or do other systems just send out their ads the way we send out an add?
Dick Reddy: There is nothing special about the Chancellors position or the Vice Chancellors position or whatever.
Dick Weist: So New York State does something different from other systems. We are somehow odd or distinct in violating affirmative action in contrast to Wisconsin's' system.
Dick Reddy: We've done it; that's the point. We've not been observing our procedures.
The meeting was extended by a unanimous vote.
Chair Browder: We are within two people of loosing our quorum. Please don't leave. Please try to get to a vote on this issue.
Dick Weist: How do we know that they've erred on following the affirmative action guidelines. Do we know that they've limited their candidates? At least it's very clear to me that they limited their candidates when they chose the Chancellor to get somebody who would be their toady. But in other senior positions, do we know that they limited the number of candidates, that they failed to implement searches...
Dick Reddy: I don't have particulars here. All of these charges were developed on the basis of reflection and experience. Many of them are far more governance issues; Faculty Senate has a sort of oversight. Both groups regularly send people to meetings of the Board of Trustees, sit in on those meetings, and observe what's taking place within those meetings. I'm more than confident that the charge would not be made if in fact it were untrue. That would be very irresponsible on the part of both groups.
Dick Weist: I got one point out of the way, how about point number four: seeking to significantly disrupt the public mission. How has the board disrupted the public mission in its administrative work regarding these items?
Dick Reddy: If you take a look at the rest of the statement it says, "by attempting to remove State University of New York's leading hospitals and universities."
Dick Weist: In the presidents memo this activity was addressed. According to President Hefner, this activity was done in a financially responsible action, making these hospitals operate more along the line of other hospitals in the state. What is your response to the president's alternative idea regarding point four?
Dick Reddy: Well I did put that in writing to a degree. Essentially this is more of a UUP issue than it is a faculty governance issue. Although it clearly has to do with the maintenance of the university as a system, that offers a broad-based education in a variety of areas, disciplines and professions.
One of the founding factors for State University in 1949 was the fact that medical education was not broadly available in our state. That was a key issue, as well as discrimination against various racial, ethnic and religious groups that were having a hard time being able to get education in our state. However, in this particular instance the UUP, I know, has worked very hard lobbying over the past five or six years for what's called hospital flexibility legislation.
What the board of trustees wished to do was to either entirely privatize the hospitals, so that they are no longer a part of the mission of the state university, or to make them public benefit corporations and again separate from the State University. A major concern that UUP in particular had however was trying to retain the contractual rights that people had. Those were really key kinds of consideration. We felt that people were hired and had their jobs under certain sorts of circumstances. We wanted to make sure they had job retention.
There are a lot of myths about the hospitals, and generally speaking, the University Colleges, such as ours, I can go back to Dallas Beal talking about the development of the hospitals back in the mid seventies or so, seeing them as a threat in some fashion or another to the resources that we would wish to have. Essentially they do generate very substantial revenues, however what the administrati