Minutes of the University Senate Meeting
December 5, 2005
The meeting was called to
order by Chair Jacqueline Swansinger at 4:05 PM in Fenton 105.
NOTE: All handouts for this
meeting that were not attached to the agenda may be found in the .pdf file “Faculty
Senate 20051205.pdf” on the Senate website.
Approval of the agenda was
moved and seconded by Sens. Reddy/Taylor.
There was no discussion, and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Acceptance of the minutes of
November 7, 2005, was moved and seconded by Sens. Reddy/Stoddart. There was no discussion, and the motion
passed by unanimous voice vote.
Chair’s Report
Chair Swansinger informed the
body that two luncheon workshops will be held on the Fredonia Plan on Jan. 12
and 13 in S-104 Williams Center. All
Senators will receive invitations. These
are open to the campus, and it is hoped that as many chairs, faculty, and staff
as are interested will attend. Please
plan on being there by 9:45 AM, as the presentations and discussions are
scheduled for 10:00 AM until 2:00 PM each day.
Sen. McVicker questioned the
wisdom of selecting those two days.
Many of the faculty will not have returned five days prior to the
beginning of the semester. Chair
Swansinger said that she felt that most would be available during that week,
and even though these sessions would be disruptive of research or writing time,
there were very few days that would work.
She resisted scheduling it for the first week of classes because of the
complaints she could imagine coming from such scheduling.
Sen. McKinney indicated that
the final day of J-Term was the 13th, and that would cause problems
for faculty who are teaching J-Term courses.
Report of President Hefner
Pres. Hefner reported that:
·
The SUNY budget
proposal was approved by the Board of Trustees, and submitted to the Governor’s
Office. We won’t know what the Governor
included until sometime around Jan. 15, 2006.
Pres. Hefner indicated that this was the best proposed budget he’s
experienced out of the ten that he has seen since coming to SUNY.
·
The new budget
allocation process (BAP II) was approved by the Finance Committee of the Board
of Trustees, and will be on the Board’s agenda in about a week and a half.
·
We are waiting
final word on the SUNY construction request that will be presented to the
Governor and the Legislature. Fredonia
has a major item, the new Science and Technology building. Estimates of construction cost for this
building are in the $49 million range, with about $6-10 million included in
this coming request for planning and design.
·
The campus
received a letter from Middle States on Nov. 16. The accrediting body reviewed our 5-year
materials and “re-affirmed” our accreditation for the remaining five years of
the 10-year accreditation period. Pres.
Hefner thanked Dr. Peter Sinden for his efforts at shepherding this effort on
campus to such a successful conclusion.
·
The campus is
still looking for a land donation site for an incubator building. We’re talking with
·
The 2006-2007
Convocation themes will be “Origins of the Future”. We are attempting to get a “top priority”
speaker, and hopefully there will be an announcement soon.
·
All Senators
should have received an invitation to the President’s open house on Dec. 10.
Questions:
Sen.
Schwalbe asked for an update on the tuition policy. Pres. Hefner reported that a request has gone
forth to include the tuition policy in the Legislative package. This will be just for the policy, no tuition
increase. CUNY is also asking for a
tuition policy. It is yet to be seen
which of the two policies, or a combination of both, will be the result.
Report of the Vice-President for
Academic Affairs
Vice-President
Horvath began by saying at the end of her first semester at Fredonia that she
wanted to thank everybody for their patience and understanding, and especially
for tolerating all the many questions she posed.
She
asked Dr. Khalid Siddiqui and Dr. John Staples to speak to the body concerning
the “Dual Diploma” program proposed with
Drs.
Staples and Siddiqui gave a background on how the Dual Diploma programs have
come about. These are well-established
programs from the SUNY administrative end, with ongoing degrees offered by
Students
in this program will meet all the requirements of their degree program, as well
as the CCC. At least 74 hours will be
earned at Fredonia, which exceeds the requirements for residency, and similarly
at least 77 hours will be earned at Ege, including some of the CCC
credits.
Questions:
Sen.
Schwalbe asked if the substantial time spent in
Sen.
Grady asked what happens if one of these Ege students wants a different degree
after they have begun this program. The
answer was that these slots are committed, and Turkish students know this. If they change their program, they are out of
the dual diploma track, and are out of the sponsored program. They would then have to submit a new
application to be considered for any other degree. Turkish students do not have the same
flexibility of changing majors as American students do.
Sen.
Antosh asked about the bi-lingual abilities of the Turkish students. Dr. Staples answered that these students
score 550 or better on the TOPEL(?) exam, and students in this type of program
in Turkey take a full year of intensive language before they begin the actual
degree program, so for the Turkish students this essentially becomes a
five-year program. All courses in
[Secretary
was unable to identify the next questioner or hear the question.] Years one and three will be in
Dr.
Staples offered that the Turkish instructors had felt when the
Sen.
McVicker asked about the chart on p. 8 (“Table 4” --- about CCC requirements),
how were these classes determined. Were
departments consulted as to impact and frequency of offerings?
Dr.
Reddy responded saying these are all CCC courses. Most are frequently offered and there are
choices. Dr. Staples interjected that
the numbers of students are expected to increase gradually, probably starting
with 15 in the first year (2007). Sen.
McVicker responded that some of these courses are taught infrequently, and she
hoped that we can be flexible and offer additional CCC courses. V-P Horvath indicated that by the fall of
2007, there might be curricular changes.
All the CCC needs will be met, but courses may change. When we reach a cohort of about 60 students,
we very well may have to look at these decisions.
Sen.
Telly asked about costs for our students who go to
Sen.
Telly then asked if there were graduate programs at
Sen.
Grady returned to questions about the CCC.
He asked if courses from the
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Academic Affairs
Dr. Straight continued the
review of the Dual Diploma proposal with
Sen. Reddy then moved
adoption of the motion as presented.
Sen. Sasso seconded.
Discussion
Sen. Feit commented that
we’ve seen the information and proposed courses, etc. for the Computer Science
side of these dual diploma programs with Ege University, but what about the
International Studies/Relations offering?
This was answered that the programs would be constructed similarly, with
about half the coursework at each institution and half the CCC coursework at
each institution.
Sen. Telly asked how this
came about… did the Turks initiate this?
Dr. Staples answered that it was determined by the State system [in
Sen. Grady asked if the
number of students has been capped. The
answer: our target number is 30 students per year in each program, so over four
years that would be about 120 students at full capacity. Dr. Staples indicated that full capacity
would be a fairly long-term target, and the tuition brought in by these
international students would likely be used to add faculty resources where the program
impacts.
There being no further
discussion the motion was put to a vote.
It passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Demo of Microsoft Exchange (new campus email program)
Dr. Christopher Lewis (from
IT) and Ms. Janet Mayer (Educational Technologist, Reed Library) presented an
overview of the campus’s new email and collaborative software program, MS
Exchange. The email client is Outlook
(not Outlook Express), and will have quite a bit familiar about its look and
feel for those who use Microsoft software.
Exchange is part of Microsoft’s “collaborative suite”, which also
includes its “sharepoint service” software.
Outlook was chosen because it is mature, and its functionality is very
solid. Yes, it does have security
issues, but just about every program has some in these days. This will be very comfortable for those of
us who use Word, Excel, and other MS products.
There is a Mac version, called Entourage, which has a Mac feel to it, as
well.
This new software is being
rolled out right now. The first to
receive it are the IT staff. Then we
will have some pilot areas: the Library, Financial Aid (because that department
uses Schedule Plus, and we can learn migration issues for Schedule Plus users),
then we will move out to all of ITS, and then the Registrar’s office. After that, roll out will be department by
department. The schedule will be out
next month (they hope). Karen Klose has
asked that anyone who has ideas for a group that would be good to pilot, please
contact her.
On the tables as you came in
there were copies of the current campus email policy [attached to these
minutes, “Electronic Mail Policy”] and proposed changes to this policy [also
attached to these minutes, “Email Policy Considerations”]. As it is written now, this proposed new email
policy will make use of campus email mandatory for anyone who needs to have
it. (For example, if Financial Aid
notices are sent out using campus email, all students receiving such aid must
use campus email to receive their information.) Some of the supported email clients will
change, as well, under the new policy.
[The demonstration was given,
highlighting the functionalities, the collaborative calendar, a new meeting
scheduling and “invitation” function, and the “Global Address List” which
includes everyone and every group in the faculty and staff apparently.] Consistency was emphasized during the
presentation.
Questions:
Sen. Jacobson asked if the
new address function would make it easier to create email lists. Dr. Lewis answered that since it uses “Active
Directory” there can be tons of identification information made available.
Sen. Schwalbe asked if the
web-based version would allow him to access his local folders when using the
web product. Ms. Mayer answered saying
that you could certainly access your web folders, and there are different
defaults that could be set up. They are
testing the web product now with some of these defaults. She added that the current limitation of
10-15 megabytes is going to be increased to 100 megabytes per person, and the
system will inform you with gradual signals that your quota is beginning to
become full. With about 20% of your
quota available, you probably won’t be able to send messages, but you will
still receive all of your incoming mail.
At higher levels, other signals will happen. It is unlikely that anyone will ever reach
their full quota because of the design of these signals.
V-P Horvath asked if the
meeting schedule function meant that everyone would have to input their schedules
(classes, committee meetings, etc.), and was answered yes, but if they don’t
there is clear visual indication that this person isn’t using the calendar, so
those scheduling meetings will know that they have to contact this member of
the group using a different methodology.
Dr. Siddiqui asked if there
was any way that a priority user (such as Pres., V-P, or Dean) could have more
“power” in the realm of changing the meeting date/time.
Mr. Tiffany asked if he could
tie in his pda. “Absolutely,” was the response.
[Missed question/comment]
Sen. Wilson asked if there
were a specific version of Windows that had to be used, such as XP. The answer was that it works on a variety of
Windows platforms. Although, Win98 might
be a bit too old, but the web version will work on any.
The presenters said that the
migration process would try to schedule a department as a group. There would be a small pre-training
assessment to determine what level of equipment and software each person was
using. Then there would be a class
training session, with all departments having been migrated between February
and summer 2006.
Sen. Grady asked if the
calendar worked through the web site, as well.
The answer was yes, but the presenters weren’t sure if one could “sync”
it from the web.
Dr. Rogers asked what about
people who were using really old machines, like him, where he couldn’t even get
Outlook to work (he is using Netscape because his machine isn’t robust enough
for Outlook). The answer was that
perhaps one would have to use the web version until a hardware upgrade could be
accomplished.
Sen. Schwalbe asked if the
calendar could be shared, and the response was yes. There are read privileges and edit
privileges that can be shared.
The presenters concluded by
pointing out the “uZone” web address (on the back side of the “Email Policy
Considerations” handout), adding that all information on the migration will be
kept there, including background information, policy decisions, just about
anything related to this project.
Sen. Eikenburg then asked if
transferring one’s address book was going to be possible. The answer, yes.
Dr. Siddiqui asked what
happens when you exceed the quota. The
response, you won’t be able to get that far, and once you clear your file all
the held material comes in (and you might have to continue clearing until it
all gets in.)
Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee
Dr. Barneva reported for
Jennifer Burke that the Committee will be sending out a survey to determine
areas that are desired for professional development. On a question from Chair Swansinger about the time of the distribution of the survey, she answered that the best time would be the beginning of next semester, but this is only her personal opinion.
SUNY Faculty Senate Senator
Dr. Rogers reported that
several resolutions had passed at the plenary in October, and an email had been
sent to all the local Senators containing the resolutions. However, two of the resolutions have caused a
bit of a stir throughout SUNY. [The two
resolutions are attached to these minutes, “Resolution in Support of NYS
College of Ceramics” and “Proposed Resolution on the Academic Bill of Rights”]
Dr. Rogers indicated that
just about every SUNY faculty senate that had taken up the
5:30 having arrived, a motion
to extend the meeting was called for by the Chair. Sens. Reddy/Pickreign moved/seconded that
the meeting be extended for five minutes.
There was no discussion. The motion passed on unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Reddy moved that the
Fredonia University Senate also approve the “Resolution in Support of the NYS
College of Ceramics”. Sen. Wilkes
seconded. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Then Dr. Rogers moved on to
the “Proposed Resolution on the Academic Bill of Rights”. He said that this probably wouldn’t have to
be voted, because the committee of the Board of Trustees dealing with it will
probably keep it bottled up for a while.
The one trustee who is pushing it will have her term expire in 2007,
when it is unlikely that the new Governor will reappoint her.
Sen. Reddy asked if the SUNY
Faculty Senate had passed it, and was told that yes, it was passed. Sen. McVicker then asked it did pass on Oct.
29? The answer was again, yes. Faculty Senator Rogers then wondered do we
want to endorse this or not. Sen. Reddy
then moved that the Fredonia University Senate endorses the “Resolution on the Academic
Bill of Rights” as passed by the SUNY Faculty Senate. Sen. Taylor seconded. There was no discussion. The motion passed by voice vote.
Then Dr. Rogers let it be
known that his 3-year term would be ending at the end of this academic year,
and he was not going to run again. He
encouraged all who might be interested in learning about what the position
entails, and about how the greater Faculty Senate operates contact him. He would be more than happy to talk with
anyone who is interested in getting involved with SUNY-wide Senate matters.
Chair Swansinger encouraged
nominations or self-nominations. We will
be electing a replacement for Dr. Rogers during the spring.
New Business
A motion was brought to the
Senate by a group of Senators, “Proposal Regarding J-Term” [attached to the
agenda].
Sen. Taylor suggested it was
rather short notice to implement this proposal if passed. The Chair indicated it would be for the
J-Term after 2006.
Sen. Pickreign asked if this
would increase the filtering of courses offered, since the administration
doesn’t impose on the departments any criteria, but leaves it to the
departments to determine courses they wish to offer for J-Term. Chair Swansinger responded that as far as
she knew, that is correct, the departments now are the only arbiters of what
will be offered for J-Term.
Sen. Antosh suggested that
this might be the first step in looking at all short-term courses. It would be nice if the departments all could
monitor these courses, but she thinks that this is not always happening. The motion gives three options.
Registrar Nan Bowser
commented that whatever rule the Senate or campus comes up with, PLEASE make
sure it is consistent with summer session.
In response to a brief
question from Sen. Telly, Ms. Bowser said there are one-week courses offered in
summer session, so please make the two sessions consistent, whatever you do.
Sen. Feit asked isn’t there
an inconsistency between fall/spring semesters and J-Term/Summer? Ms. Bowser said there are schedule
limitations mandated by State and/or SUNY policies for semesters. “Sessions” are looser, not controlled as
strictly.
At this point Sens.
Reddy/Pickreign moved that the meeting be extended an additional five
minutes. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Grady commented that if
the same principal needs to apply to summer courses, then he would offer a
friendly amendment to change the wording “J-Term” to “all courses less than
three weeks in length.” Seconded by Ruth
Antosh.
Dr. Rogers asked if there is
that much distrust of the departments and our colleagues, that they aren’t
doing their jobs.
Sen. Antosh responded, saying
that it is not distrust, it is differences in departmental cultures… some won’t
criticize courses offered by their colleagues, some feel sorry for adjuncts and
try to provide them ways of earning more money, etc.
Sen. Grady commented that
regular courses need approval by the Academic Affairs Committee (and possibly
other committees depending on the course), and these courses are essentially
different courses with different syllabi (abridged syllabi).
Sen. Wilson commented that
pedagogically a 15-week version of a course is not the same as a 2-week
version. There are 3-week and 2-week
courses specifically designed for these shorter sessions.
Dr. Faulk interjected that
we’ve discussed this before. We’ve
specified that the departments are to look at the courses that are being
proposed for a J-Term session, and determine if they can appropriately be
taught during these shortened periods.
In 2006, we have HALF as many J-Term courses as we had one year
ago. The review has been happening.
Dean Givner commented that
aren’t there a certain number of contact minutes/hours and attendant learning outcomes.
Chair Swansinger responded
that the second portion of that (the learning outcomes part) is essentially
department by department.
Dean Givner continued asking
do we want to standardize when there are so many ways that courses can be delivered.
Sen. McKinney offered that
the 2-week course just “doesn’t go” in her field (psychology). Many in her department are turning to the
SUNY Learning Network. It is just not
possible for their students to retain the information that is dumped on them in
a 2-week course. 3-weeks is an option,
possibly… just one more week of reading material can make a great difference.
Dr. Faulk responded that a
3-week schedule in January is very difficult to achieve. This year we would have to begin on Dec.
26.
At this point Sens.
Reddy/Telly moved/seconded that the meeting be extended an additional five
minutes. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Registrar Bowser asked for a
clarification [the Secretary didn’t hear the remainder].
Sen. Pickreign commented that
we should extend J-Term to at least three weeks.
Ms. Bowser responded that a
3-week J-Term would be very dependent upon the calendar. There are very few January’s when we have a
full 3-weeks before the spring semester begins, currently. She doubts if we could really begin to teach
for J-Term beginning in the last week in December. Next year, we do not have three weeks in
January under the current calendar.
Sen. Steinberg commented that
this is not that difficult. If a course
is offered for these shortened periods, they should be appropriate for such a
timeframe. It is not simply contact
hours that are important. No way could
he teach his courses in three weeks.
Let a body review them.
Dean Givner asked if any
other options had been explored. After
January 2006, we should de-brief and look at what other options exist. We could bring an expanded group together to
look at it.
Sen. McVicker said she would
vote this proposal down, and at the end of J-Term [2006] charge the Academic
Affairs Committee and the Academic Affairs Leadership group to put it on their
agenda and look at it thoroughly.
Dean Givner commented that
she has yet to see any cogent information regarding criteria upon which we will
conduct such a review. Outcomes data
from the students would be necessary, not just contact hours.
Sen. Telly reiterated his
feeling that when the idea of J-Term was brought before the University Senate
the first time, most were aghast. It
had never been discussed widely with faculty before it was proposed. The original committee was mostly
professionals and administrators with only a very few faculty. We were told as soon as J-Term was over,
we’d get all the information. We’ve
never found out what the results were.
We have no standards, and we need them.
I had one student, who was a poor student, take two of these J-Term
courses, and they got A’s in both! This
student couldn’t get D’s in most of his classes during the normal
semester! We have to enforce standards.
Sen. Reddy moved to table the
motion. Sen. McKinney seconded. In
discussion, Sen. Reddy said he felt that a more effective discussion could
occur in February. Sen. McVicker asked
where this would fall on that agenda, and Chair Swansinger offered that it
probably would be right after the V-P’s report. Sen. Reddy, as Parliamentarian, interjected
that it could be placed at any point on the agenda for February. Sen. Antosh asked all that are interested in
the topic to contact their colleagues at other institutions that offer a J-Term
like experience, and determine what kind of policies, procedures, and practices
to add to our discussion.
There being no further
discussion, the motion to table passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sens. Reddy/Taylor moved
adjournment. The motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney
Faculty Secretary