Minutes
Meeting of October 3, 2005
The meeting was called to order by Chair Jacqueline Swansinger at 4:05 PM in Fenton 105.
The Chair called for a motion to accept the agenda. Reddy/Taylor moved/seconded. With no discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The Chair called for a motion to accept the draft minutes of the meeting of September 12, 2005. Reddy/Feit moved/seconded. Sen. Stoddart raised the issue of the attached attendance sheet. Chair Swansinger informed the body that an error had occurred and somehow erroneous attendance information had gotten saved to the file. A corrected attendance sheet will be attached to the official minutes. Without further discussion, the draft minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.
STRENGTHENED CAMPUS-BASED ASSESSMENT
The Chair introduced Dr. Patty Francis, Assistant Provost for University Advancement and Academic Initiative, and Co-Chair of the General Education Assessment Review (GEAR) group, spoke to the body about "Strengthened Campus-Based Assessment." She indicated that most of the four-year colleges in SUNY seem to be leaning toward the "rubric" approach to the Strengthened Campus-Based Assessment program. She presented a brief history of the program, a brief overview of the various assessment possibilities for the written basic communication, mathematics and quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking components of the program.
Questions:
Dr. Robert Rogers, our SUNY Faculty Senator, asked how similar are the testing firms making the proposed nationally-normed instruments to the SAT? Dr. Francis responded that SUNY had established clear criteria for the assessment, and existing tests were not suitable. SUNY expects any commercially produced test to map very well with the SUNY learning outcomes. SUNY also expects any commercially produced instrument to yield subscores for any one test, so we can establish if there are students who are very good in one or more of the learning outcomes, but not so well on others of them, within one of the three major assessment test subject areas.
Dr. Rogers asked about the different approaches for the three assessment areas, indicating that he has heard that the tests looked at by the critical thinking and communication panels might have matched will with national norms, but that the mathematics panel (on which he serves), didn't feel the same. Dr. Francis said that campuses are not obligated to use nationally normed tests. There are other alternatives.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Hefner was returning from a site review at Frostburg State in Maryland, and his plane apparently was delayed in arriving in Buffalo.
VICE PRESIDENT for ACADEMIC AFFAIRS REPORT
VP Horvath said that if Pres. Hefner had been here, he probably would have reported on a project he is working on, a report to the Chancellor concerning multi-year needs of Fredonia. Each campus has been asked to submit such a report, the first time since Pres. Hefner has been at Fredonia that SUNY Central has actually approached the campuses asking what was needed before a budget request was developed. She indicated that Pres. Hefner included a large amount for SUNY-wide initiatives: library funding, technology, delivery of certain programs (teacher education is an example), and hiring more full-time faculty.
The Vice President reported that most of the searches are actually under way!
She handed out an outline of "Academic Affairs Meetings: Fall Semester" which will help de-mystify the new Academic Leadership meetings.[The handout is attached to these minutes.] This is the new format for the old Deans and Directors meetings, with a bit of a new twist. Meetings will alternate between business meetings and opportunities for professional development. One meeting per semester will be an open meeting, where anyone may attend and identify and discuss issues that the academic leaders might address. The meetings listed on the handout are for a wider group of faculty and staff, so please become aware of them, and feel free to come and join the discussion. None of these meetings is mandatory, but all who are interested are welcome.
VP Horvath announced that Len Faulk has stated his intention to pursue "differential engagement" (otherwise known as retirement) as of Feb. 27, 2006. She continued that this was a good chance to review the activities and leadership in the areas of graduate studies and lifelong learning. She then led a healthy round of applause, thanking Dr. Faulk for his contributions to the campus during his tenure.
Dr. Horvath then asked Dr. Melinda Karnes, Assoc. VP for Academic Affairs, to bring the Academic Plan before the body for its second reading. Dr. Karnes told the Senate that some changes had been made from the copy that was handed out at the prior meeting of the Senate. She had handouts of the revised version [not attached to these minutes because it will be revised], and indicated that the M.A. in Music Therapy had been added with a 2006 implementation year. Len Faulk and Joni Milgram-Luterman informed the Senate that this was the result of a move in NY to licensure of Music Therapists, requiring a Master's level degree. Currently, NY is grandfathering in those therapists who have sufficient years of clinical practice, and it makes sense to offer the M.A. here, because we have the most rigorous undergraduate program musically, and we would like to keep our students here rather than ship them off to some other school for their Master's level work. The Social Work and Psychology programs will also benefit from having this new program. It is very time sensitive, so that is why it was put in with such a quick implementation date.
Questions:
Senator R. Antosh asked if the date for the external review of the Spanish, French Adolescence, and Spanish Adolescence programs was correct in the plan. Dr. Karnes indicated that 2007-2008 was correct.
Senator C. Stoddart indicated there was a problem with the naming (?) of the School District Leadership C.A.S. program, suggesting that it was supposed to be the Building Leadership C.A.S. for 2006? Dr. Karnes indicated that she thought the Building Leadership was part of the School Administrator & Supervisor certificate program (?)
Dr. Bob Rogers asked about the form of listing the M.A.T. for mathematics and science. Dean Ewing indicated that he was aware of the need for revising that wording. Dr. Karnes said that would be corrected editorially.
Senator Julia Wilson said that she felt that the M.A.T. in mathematics couldn't be ready by 2006, possibly not even by 2007.
Senator Charles Telly asked why were two programs in Speech Pathology listed as being deactivated. Dean Ewing said that he would confer with the Chair of that department before this document was finalized.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman asked if having a listing in the Academic Master Plan committed us to the specific degree as listed, indicating there were many ways of designating the degree at the Master's level for music therapy as an example. Dr. Karnes answered that these are programs in development, and the terminology can be changed.
Sen. Jan McVicker asked since English had to delay its external review, would the external review date follow the old 5-year timeline, or would it be re-set? It will be re-set. VP Horvath informed us that Dr. Francis has asked that our external review schedule be "cleaned up", and we will do that.
A clean copy of the Academic Master Plan will be brought to the next meeting for a vote.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Planning & Budget
Bruce Simon, Chair, reported that the Committee had met with Pres. Hefner and had a thorough run-through of the proposed Budget Allocation Process (BAP) II. Pres. Hefner is very upbeat about it, but at the UUP Delegate Assembly voices said to be cautious, with NY politics being what they can be. BAP I had resources shifting from the undergraduate schools to the University Centers (about $6-8 million per year) because it was so heavily weighted toward research. The Centers found ways to get as much as possible counted as "research". BAP II should stop that, if it gets approved. Performance based categories in BAP II will not come into play unless there is additional funding provided to cover those categories.
Questions:
Sen. Telly asked what does it mean to "DO WELL". Bruce responded that each campus negotiates its performance goals with SUNY Central, and at the end a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is signed. Sen. Telly continued saying that such a plan was done before, and very little came of it. Bruce explained that in the past, new monies to use as incentives were never provided for such performance goals, and thus a campus couldn't really do much about what had been planned. The Mission Review II is almost a done deal, and if BAP II becomes a reality, then the Fredonia Plan can really make an impact. Since the Fredonia Plan is completely campus based, we can possibly get things moving forward. He expects that the revised and reviewed Fredonia Plan will come to the Senate for a vote in December.
Chair Swansinger added that the MOU from Mission Review II will come to the Senate for a vote. It is essentially a contract between SUNY Central and the campus. The Fredonia Plan may come for a vote nearly at the same time.
Bruce Simon continued that there are real debates over what is a good measure of student learning... for example, retention in the freshman year tends to lead to improved graduation rates, but others might wish to add numbers of students who leave because an institution prepares them to be able to do the work at a "better level" school.
Senator Richard Reddy made the observation that when the MOU and/or the Fredonia Plan come before the Senate, they will be amendable actions. None of these are contracts until they are actually approved by the Senate.
Sen. McVicker asked if the Mission Review II [MOU??] will be coming to the Senate. The answer was yes, before the end of the semester. McVicker then asked if it will be a first reading in December that would mean we wouldn't vote until February. The answer: maybe. McVicker then carried her point forward, saying that she hopes the Senate won't be inundated with important documents in the last weeks of the semester, when no one has time to read them thoroughly, because we don't do well with that kind of last minute rush.
Sen. Telly interjected that he hopes this can be handled by April, because it is always horrible to act on such important matters at the May Senate meeting.
Academic Affairs Committee
Dr. Joseph Straight presented two proposals from the Committee. The first was a second look at "The Role of the University Catalog Within Academic Affairs" (attached to the meeting agenda).
Dr. Straight indicated this revision tried to make it more clear how the CCC fits in, as well as which set of requirements a student would be following, plus added wording that allowed for exceptions to be made as to which set of requirements a student would follow. He provided some examples, one in which a department wished to make its currently elective senior seminar a requirement of the program, and it had two theory courses, and now wishes to require only one theory course and move the content of the other into the introductory courses. These changes would become effective with fall 2006. If a student forgot to declare her/his major and already had taken the old courses, an exception could be made for this student.
Questions:
Senator M. Grady spoke to the point of section no. 2, that transfer students can't declare until they get on campus, and currently are held to the catalog that existed when they [began their college career?]. Registrar Nan Bowser interjected that there were accommodations made for the adoption of the new SUNY Gen. Ed. requirements, but nothing has ever been put in place for major requirements. Transfers follow major requirements based on the time they begin at Fredonia.
Senator Grady continued, asking that in the past we've had students who wanted to switch to other programs, but they did not meet requirements due to criteria (such as GPA), which meant they weren't allowed to declare that major at that time. Isn't this unfair to switch program requirements for these types of cases? J. Straight answered that he hoped chairs would be reasonable in granting exceptions under the proposal.
Senator Grady then asked if the date of declaration would be easily accessible in Banner. Nan Bowser said not right now, but a new version is being rolled out, and she and Scott Saunders had been looking at it, and there seems to be the new ability to have different category terms (for major, CCC, and minor). Give the Registrar's Office time to investigate that issue more fully. She is not sure how this will all mix in with the ‘degree audit' functionality.
J. Straight said this is one reason the Committee included ‘effective as soon as is feasible' in the opening sentence.
Registrar Bowser stated that she liked the spirit of working for the best interests of the students reflected in this proposal.
Dr. Melinda Karnes asked if "website" in the opening statement equals "online catalog". Anywhere on the web site, one could find differing statements of requirements? J. Straight indicated that the intent is to have all of the catalogs on the web site, with the dates. The intent of this proposal is not that program changes are required every year.
Christine Mantai spoke concerning the web site. There are variations on our site. The departments have their own web pages, and the official catalog pages are updated every two years (currently). How will all of this data be changed over time? J. Straight said changes would be made at least on an annual basis, and the University needs to decide who will have control of that part of the web site; we wish to minimize inconsistencies between the catalog and the departmental web pages.
Dr. Leonard Faulk spoke, thinking of what needs to be done every catalog year, there are not only individual department changes, but often thought must be given to how other departments are affected. Who will plan this timeline, and how will this affect workload? J. Straight suggested that electronic changes should be less work in the long run. Once we have the wording correct, we can publish it quickly electronically. This might lead us to a whole new way of looking at the catalog change process.
Senator Jan McVicker stated that she is not opposed, but wanted to make the observation that we may be putting the cart before the horse. How program changes are handled is a cumbersome process, with all the approval phases. It's a real mess of a process. We ought to be working on that process, and then put it all online. This would allow us to investigate new uses of Banner.
Senator Richard Reddy stated that he saw no provision in section 2 for that statement to be placed in the catalog where most students would see it.
Senator M. Grady suggested that it seems very complicated to have multiple catalog years for each student for major declaration date, CCC date, and declaration of minor date. Students won't remember the dates. The date of matriculation might be the best year to remember. J. Straight responded that many departments currently deal with these issues by using various checklists, and provide the appropriate checklist when a student declares. Students can be made responsible to keep it up to date.
Senator Dani McKinney spoke that she doesn't feel the campus is ready for this to be implemented. Can Banner be used by students for such information? Registrar Bowser responded that not today, possibly in November, but whether the information can be made available to advisors, we just don't know today. J. Straight responded by saying requirements can drive technology, and Mike Jabot has found new ways to use our Banner implementation.
There being no further discussion, the motion of the Committee was voted upon, without amendment. Voice vote was not conclusive; show of hands: 13 Aye, 7 No.
A second proposal of the Academic Affairs Committee dealing with "Faculty Approval of Degree Candidates" (attached to the agenda) was presented by J. Straight. Chair Swansinger prefaced his presentation by saying this came from the action of the University Senate in May 2005. She indicated that Pres. Hefner did not have any position on the matter, since the idea was raised by the Senate in the first place. J. Straight began the presentation by indicating the Academic Affairs Committee felt it important that there be the chance for any faculty member who knew that a student had not met the requirements for a degree, be given the chance to present that in a general meeting of the faculty before the vote on the candidates occurred. This would not preclude having a ceremonial vote at commencement.
Questions:
Senator R. Reddy observed that line 3 of section 3 of the proposed policy refers to "slate, possibly as amended", as though names are included. The general motion has always been worded "approximately [followed by a number]", without any specific names involved.
Registrar Bowser asked if names would have to be provided at this meeting.
Senator R. Reddy added that the department chairs have already approved the candidates by that point. Will the meeting be going through the list of the graduates?
J. Straight responded that 99% would be fine, and rarely would a faculty member feel the need to rise and speak against a candidate.
Senator Reddy then suggested that addition or deletion to that list of names would be a moot point, since the Registrar has to do a degree audit which is not complete by commencement, anyway. This entire proposed process doesn't make much sense. J. Straight repeated his statement that this would be a very rare occurrence. At least faculty would be able to have their say concerning what they perceived as being a problem with the candidates as proposed.
Senator J. McVicker asked why not do that in your department. She couldn't imagine having such a debate in a general faculty meeting. Every department has its own procedures, and we probably all do this slightly differently.
Registrar Bowser asked if there was anything that anyone knew of that was problematic that caused this change to be requested? J. Straight said there had been a threat of something happening in the past, and that this was just reinforcing the role of the faculty based on academic traditions of the past.
Registrar Bowser said she had doubts that such a policy would be acceptable under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. J. Straight said the action would be based on a list of approved candidates. Registrar Bowser responded that the list is of candidates who have APPLIED, not those that have been approved. How will confidentiality be maintained? J. Straight indicated that the Committee had played around with the idea of having the vote after the list of approved candidates could be obtained, and thought it would be impracticable.
The hour of 5:30 approaching, Chair Swansinger interrupted requesting a motion to extend the meeting. Senators Reddy/Simmons moved/seconded that the meeting be extended 15 minutes. No discussion. Passed by unanimous voice vote.
SUNY Senator Bob Rogers said that this seems too heavy handed to make the departments have such a meeting. Does this body have the authority to do that? J. Straight answered, saying this body has the authority to vote on motions brought before it.
Senator M. Grady suggested that if it is left up to the "home" department, then other departments, such as one in which the student didn't fulfill a CCC class requirements, no one will have any input to the "home" department.
Registrar Bowser informed the body that the Registrar's Office DOES look at EVERY student's record. She also said that from her point of view, she would prefer that "etc." be replaced with a specific list of report items.
J. Straight said he would take these comments back to the Committee and would return with revisions.
SUNY UNIVERSITY SENATE SENATOR'S REPORT
SUNY Senator Bob Rogers said that "all is quiet on the Eastern Front". He will push for the SUNY Senate to have some sort of assessment of SUNY Central and the SUNY Board, unless he is instructed otherwise by our Senate.
Chair Swansinger then indicated that there was "new" business, but it was being placed under "old" business at the request of Sen. Telly, because the Senator made a case that this has been a topic that has been to the Senate for reports, etc., many times.
Senator Charles Telly moved the "Motion Pertaining to J-Term and Summer School" . Senator Neil Feit seconded. Dr. Telly spoke in favor of the motion, saying his department had voted not to have any J-Term like courses because their department has no courses that they consider to lend themselves to a 2-week format. Senator Feit added that the report in May suggests a 3-week J-Term, and that may be a viable change that we need to discuss. Senator Telly then spoke to the idea that a summer school session was being planned for four weeks, and asked why? And who did this?
J. Straight asked are you calling for a Standing Committee to look into this, or the Senate.
Chair Swansinger suggested that Dr. Telly wants to make sure that all such matters will be discussed in the Senate. Senator Telly then responded that J-Term came to the Senate as a fait-accompli. We never discussed it [as to whether it was a good thing to do, or whether it was pedagogically sound]. Today's administrators do not wish for faculty to exercise any semblance of their academic rights.
Senator Reddy rose to say that he felt we have discussed the issue. All of these courses are within state guidelines in terms of minutes/hours per class. The issue really is how much learning can take place in such time-shortened courses. Chairs are required to identify if there are possible problems with particular courses being offered in the J-Term shortened format, and Deans are expected to investigate when such conflicts are noted.
Senator Ruth Antosh asked for a point of clarification. [garbled notes]
5:45 PM having arrived, Chair Swansinger asked for a motion to extend the meeting an additional ten minutes. Carden/??? moved an extension for five minutes. No discussion. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
J. Straight said that he would have no objection for a general statement that the Senate wants to be involved in the creation of such policies. We need to take a long, hard look at why we have J-Term and Summer Session. Is it only to bring in revenue?
Senator Jan McVicker indicated she is happy that this conversation has begun. We need a decision as to how we want to run a summer session. At some point, there is a role for the Senate, but perhaps that isn't right now. This needs to be a campus-wide discussion.
Senator Mike Grady spoke to the point of needing to look at standards, not just whether a class meets the required amount of minutes. Are there no major assignments? Papers required? Is the syllabus the same? If the syllabus is different, then the course is different and should be approved via the normal channels.
Chair Swansinger offered a point of information. The Departments are currently the review point as to whether a course can meet its usual standards if presented in a J-Term or Summer Session format.
Senator McVicker offered her view that Dept. Chairs have not been, but are finally being asked to make such reports.
Senator Telly added that some colleagues won't teach summer session due to the low pay. We could have a larger summer session if we had decent pay scales.
Senator Julia Wilson asked what we would be voting on. Would we be committing to any schedule? [The response was no.]
There being no further discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Senators Reddy/Feit moved/seconded that the meeting be adjourned. No discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney
Faculty Secretary
Motion Pertaining to J-Term and Summer School
Attendance Sheet 10/3/05 meeting
Corrected Attendance Sheet 09/12/05 meeting
Academic Leadership attachment