MINUTES OF FREDONIA UNIVERSITY SENATE April 4, 2005
The meeting was called to order by Chair Richard Reddy at 4:02 PM in Fenton 105.
1. Agenda
The Agenda was approved as provided by unanimous voice vote.
2. Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of March 7, 2005, were approved as submitted by unanimous voice vote. In the brief discussion, it was noted that no names had been attached to the various pieces, and Jan McVicker wondered why. Secretary V. Courtney responded that things just went so quickly during that meeting that he couldn't keep up with who was saying what, so had no names to provide for most of the discussions.
3. Chair's report
Jacky Swansinger informed the body that she was being considered for a Dean's position at a California State University campus, and when she agreed to become the replacement Vice Chair/Chair-elect she had thought that particular search was completed, at least as far as her involvement had been concerned. Chair R. Reddy indicated that the Executive Committee had met and determined that without objection, Jacky could continue in this role if she isn't ultimately chosen for the California position, but that just to insure that we would have an experienced chair next year the Senate would elect a "provisional" Vice Chair/Chair Elect in the May meeting. He also indicated that he would be willing to serve another year, if necessary, but feels strongly that others should have the opportunity to serve. It is because J. Swansinger will not know the outcome of this search until after the May meeting (and may be gone to California before the opening meeting in Fall 2005), that this extraordinary solution is being offered. There was no discussion when this was opened up to the floor. Therefore, the Executive Committee will open the position of provisional Vice Chair/Chair Elect (2004-2005) for nominations, and the Senate will elect this position in May. One need not be a Senator to serve as a Senate officer.
Elections of Senate Officers for 2005-2006:
Mary Carney (Sociology: Social Work) was nominated as Vice Chair/Chair elect for 2005-2006. A call for further nominations from the floor was made by Chair Reddy. There being none, Mary Carney was declared elected.
Vincent Courtney (Library) was nominated as Faculty Secretary for 2005-2006. A call for further nominations from the floor was made by Chair Reddy. There being none, Vincent Courtney was declared elected.
Reneta Barneva (Computer Science) was nominated as Governance Officer. A call for further nominations from the floor was made by Chair Reddy. There being none, Reneta Barneva was declared elected.
4. President's Report
President Hefner was absent, and Len Faulk made his report for him.
Searches: David Tiffany has been appointed as Vice President for University Advancement. He will begin his responsibilities on April 20, 2005. Thanks were extended to Karen West for all the excellent work she accomplished as interim.
Fredonia Plan: after a "marathon" meeting last Wednesday, 17 (of 5310) proposed action pieces have been fleshed out. A listing of these in their most basic form will be issued very soon.
Student Code of Conduct: A lot of work has been done during the last week by the Student Cabinet and SA to further refine the controversial aspect of this code. Patrick Fanelli, President of the Student Association (and a Senator), was asked to present the proposal (attached to these minutes). Sen. Fanelli stated that this discussion wasn't intended to decide whether or not the code should be on the books, because that has already been decided. The students wanted to make sure that the language reflected the intent that this section was for serious infractions (such as hazing, assault, and drug cases.) As the section had been written, it would have been possible to bring charges against other students for any violation. The language being presented has been approved by the Student Cabinet. It is still somewhat vague, and underage drinking could still result in such charges, but at least a student who was not actually doing the violation could have as a defense that the violation was not a "serious violation".
A motion to approve the change to section 3: "Statement of Jurisdiction," paragraph 4 of the Code of Student Conduct was made and seconded (T. Taylor/M. Jabot).
Joan Burke suggested an editorial change from "students that" to "students who", which was accepted as a friendly amendment.
H. Jacobson thought this language was still too ambiguous. He could imagine a student NOT being able to remove themselves without problems.
A. Deakin asked how is assault included as a violation of the student body as a whole? P. Fanelli responded that safety and well being issues can be interpreted either of the student body as a whole or as an individual.
[???] asked if this could be tabled and sent back to Student Affairs Committee for more work. Len Faulk resonded that the original version passed in March will be printed in the College Catalog unless we can get the language changed very soon. H. Jacobson suggested that he could see this language endangering the "tag along" student, who just happens to be in that kind of situation. He moved to refer this back to the Student Affairs Committee. No second was heard. If we don't change it is it in the catalog as it reads currently? The answer to that question was a "yes" from several respondents.
[???] said that the students are under the most recent version of the Code of Student Conduct, whether it is in the catalog, on the web, or just passed the various levels of governance.
S. Kershnar suggested the Senate separate this into two issues. One, do we need this at all; and two, if we do, how can this language be improved.
T. Steinberg indicated that he didn't know the legal aspects, but such actions do have legal ramifications. The language indicating such wouldn't have to be included in the code. D. Herman responded saying this language was put in initially to make students aware that indeed they could be subject to legal action in these situations, and the University thought they would like to know this in advance.
T. Sharon stated that J. Corrente had said it was to protect students by providing them with the knowledge that such charges can be legally placed against them. J. Corrente responded saying that what we're attempting to do now is get language with which students are more comfortable.
Jan McVicker asked, is the policy (as was passed in March) online now and enforced now? J. Corrente replied that yes, it is. McVicker then indicated that since that was the case, we should make the changes we want to.
S. Kershnar asked if his idea to split the question could be adopted as a friendly amendment. P. Fanelli and D. Herman both responsed that the current motion was not to eliminate, but to clarify the current language. Fanelli indicated that generally students are supportive, at least in discussions that have been held that he has been a part of. He is not sure if the students would be happier if this was not at all. He is sure that students want the current language clarified.
Markus Vink said that the Senate voted to approve the policy in March. To vote not to in April would be inconsistent.
Neil Feit spoke, saying the clarified policy as presented still contains controversial language. Students allowing such activity can be charged "for the violation". He is still uncomfortable with that language.
Bruce Simon profferred a potential change in the proposed language, saying we could change drop "... have demonstrated an implied consent for the violations and thus ..." so it reads, "...of the student body may be charged for the violation(s)..."
Julia Wilson suggested including words, such as "complicity" to describe the act(s).
S. Kershner moved to divide the question (as he had earlier proposed.) J. McVicker seconded.
In discussion, A. Deakin indicated that she felt a need for student input. Joe Baxter said to vote the policy down would seem "wishy washy" in light that we approved it in March. P. Fanelli stated that he didn't feel comfortable bringing up the issue for rescinding the March vote, because when students were working on this clarifying language, they assumed it would not be stricken down totally. Chair R. Reddy reminded the body that any vote the Senate takes is advisory only to the President, anyway. Liz Lee said that this policy supposedly is there "to protect students." If students are unaware of what could be charged with, is that protecting them? The whole philosophy of this code was to protect students. J. Wilson asked if this is law? D. Herman answered yes, all students present at a California hazing incident were charged. Only two did it, but all were arrested. S. Kershnar also responded saying such laws are usually limited, and are hard to enforce. J. Swansinger related a Chicago hazing incident (possibly in a high school) that every one of the students was charged, and all had some sort of punishment handed down both by the school and the legal jurisdiction. These laws are getting tougher. B. Simon said our policy says "may be" charged, not "will be".
There being no further discussion on the Kershnar/McVicker motion, a voice vote was taken. The motion was defeated.
Joni Milgram-Luterman raised a point about the use of the word "allow" in the proposed change. Most people in an assault situation don't usually have that kind of power. R. Reddy indicated the language includes "witness and not report" which would cover such a situation.
P. Fanelli indicated that he didn't think the word "allow" mattered. If we "fail to remove" ourselves or fail to "report to proper authorities" is the key language.
J. Milgram-Luterman asked if "ignore" wouldn't work?
H. Jacobson then offered a different suggestion. Could we change "are present" to read "who are present at" serious violations?
Tom Rywick said that he was not in favor of this change. It needs more serious review. Forget about the deadlines. We need to send this back to Student Affairs for reworking. If we can't get it changed in time for the catalog, the changes will be reflected on the web site.
It was moved and seconded [Rywick/Sharon] that this proposal be referred back to the Student Affairs Committee for further review.
J. Wilson asked isn't it possible to vote on the language before us, and then send it to Student Affairs for further review? That would get the change into the catalog, and allow more serious review.
H. Jacobson felt that at least three places need changes. He supports the motion to refer back to Committee.
[???] said the language of the original motion passed in March would be what was in the catalog. H. Jacobson asked when the deadline for changes would be? Several people indicated their departments had been told April 11, 2005.
P. Fanelli thought it would be okay to refer the motion to Student Affairs, saying students tend not to read what is in the catalog. The most recent version (on the web site) will do.
Ann Carden supported the motion to refer back to Committee.
T. Rywick indicated that he could withdraw his motion, but we can't do the necessary language work playing around with it today, only to have to play around with it again at a later meeting.
J. Milgram-Luterman asked if an email ballot might not work? Chair Reddy said that our Senate has not done that in its history because there needs to be open discussion, and no easy way to move amendments, etc., via email.
D. Herman then reviewed the various suggestions that had been proposed thus far in the meeting.
M. Jabot called the question. There was no discussion. Chair Reddy reminded everyone that a vote to call the question requires 2/3 in favor. A vote by hand showed 16 in favor, 9 opposed. Not having a 2/3 majority, the motion failed.
H. Jacobson said he would hate to see the original version make it to print.
J. McVicker said this is the kind of thing that makes the Senate look inept and uncapable. These very important issues get brought to the Senate, only to be way down the agenda where we don't have solid debate, and we look stupid. This is going to affect students! Students need to understand what is at stake. Student representatives to the Senate need to be here to speak to these issues.
T. Steinberg added nor is it wishy washy if we agree we made a mistake.
T. Rywick said he still wants to send it back to Committee so it can be shaped properly.
P. Fanelli said today's motion on the language doesn't change anything, but will help students be more comfortable with the policy.
B. Simon spoke against the motion to refer to Committee.
Ruth Antosh asked the advantage of the motion? She sees many specific recommendations for changes in wording, but if we start at 5:05 today, we're not going to get it worded as well as it needs to be.
T. Steinberg asked about timing if it is sent to Committee. Chair Reddy said we approved the existing text in our March meeting. T. Steinberg indicated there were expressed reservations about that language. Chair Reddy said perhaps we could meet on Monday, the 11th.
Having no further discussion, the motion was put to vote. In a voice vote, the motion to refer the language in the motion on the floor back to the Student Affairs Committee failed.
Discussion on the original motion continued.
B. Simon suggested revised wording as a friendly amendment. Liz Lee commented that the word "knowledge" should be added. J. Corrente said the entire code is an attempt to get students to do what is right and to provide them with knowledge of what may happen in these situations.
H. Jacobson suggested that to have "knowledge" of an action could be considered to be hearsay.
B. Simon's wording was moved and seconded [Simon/Jacobson] [the original wording was not provided to the Faculty Secretary]
J. Baxter said he thought there was a problem with the word 'present'. Leadership might have knowledge that could be valuable.
A student in the audience (not an official SA rep) said that 'ignore' would be a more appropriate wording than 'present,' or 'knowing,' or 'knowledge of.'
B. Simon disagreed. He said bystander or witness might work better. He would prefer eyewitness. Who knows if a rumor is right?
S. Kershnar asked if 'and/or' really means 'or'? A reply was given that it could mean one or both. S. Kershnar then indicated that would mean that students would not be required to report it ever.
P. Fanelli suggested that 'ignore' would work. If one were present and allowed something to happen, and I'm knowledgable, I shouldn't ignore it. Perhaps we can say it as being 'present during'. B. Simon suggested he would be willing to change it to 'students who witness'.
T. Rywick asked if we couldn't put in some kind of charge, such as negligence. He didn't like the vagueness of 'may be charged with violation(s)'.
N. Feit suggested there is already a place elsewhere in the code that has similar language.
H. Jacobson said that perhaps some ambiguity is good.
There was some discussion of the phrasing 'may be charged for a violation' or 'may be charged for allowing a violation'.
The ultimate wording of the motion was determined to be:
Change Section 3 of the Code of Student Conduct, "Statement of Jurisdiction," paragraph 4, to read:
"Students who witness serious violations of SUNY Fredonia policy, procedures, or Rights and Responsibilities that are potentially harmful to the safety and well-being of other students may be charged with violation(s) if they fail to remove themselves from such situations and/or report the incident to proper authorities."
The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
[NOTE: President Hefner approved the motion with a slight change of wording on April 5, 2005. The official wording in the Code of Student Conduct is now:
Students who witness serious violations of SUNY Fredonia policy, procedures, or Rights and Responsibilities that are potentially harmful to the safety and well-being of other students may be charged with a violation or violations if they fail to remove themselves from such situations and/or report the incident to proper authorities.
--- Faculty Secretary]
5. Vice President's Report
Searches: Of the 24 full-time faculty tenure-track searches, 17 have been filled or have had offers accepted, 2 have offers outstanding, and 2 may be failed, and 3 are still ongoing. Dean Schwarz told the Senate that 10 of the 11 searches for faculty in the Arts and Humanities had been accepted by the first choice candidates, which will make us a stronger institution.
At this point a motion was made [Eikenberg/McVicker] and seconded to extend the meeting until 5:45 PM.
The motion passed on unanimous voice vote.
6. Standing Committee Reports
Academic Affairs Committee and Graduate Council: Preliminary Report on J-Term and Shortened Courses: Joan Burke and Joe Straight presented some preliminary findings of the Graduate Council and the Academic Affairs Committee. Burke offered a handout (attached to these minutes) of a compilation of survey of J-Term faculty for the 2005 J-Term session. Straight spoke about the preliminary recommendations (attached to these minutes). He indicated that both the Graduate Council and Academic Affairs Committee had the same ideas, almost verbatim, concerning course evaluation. Burke said that course evaluation was supposed to have been done during the two pilot J-Terms, but no one is sure if such actually was done. Closer scrutiny is needed to make sure that course evaluations occur. They asked for feedback from those on campus before a final report is presented.
In the Senate, some feedback was instantaneous.
T. Sharon asked who receives the syllabi ... is approval based solely on department chairs? J. Straight answered that as suggested in the preliminary report, this is an area that needs close oversight by the departments. And syllabi need to be forwarded to some central place... possibly the Deans... for follow-up if someone thinks there is or may be a problem. J. Burke indicated that in the past we've only looked at syllabi when a new course was proposed, not when a change in the length of presentation of a course has changed.
M. Vink said he was a teacher of a time-shortened course in J-Term 2004[?] and liked the flexibility [in the preliminary report]. He feels that certain courses don't lend themselves to a two-week format.
R. Antosh said she would like to see encouragement for departments to discuss among themselves what might work and what might not work in terms of time-shortened courses. Faculty need to TALK about this. Perhaps some kind of directive to department chairs would be helpful.
CCC Committee: The annual report of the CCC Committee was presented (attachment to the agenda). There was no discussion.
7. University Senator's Report
Bob Rogers said essentially "all's quiet on the Eastern front." More emails are likely to be generated as the date of the plenary approaches. Doesn't look right now as if the Academic Bill of Rights is going to be a major issue. The SUNY University Senate might formulate its own version.
Gen. Ed. Assessment is moving along very slowly. There is a meeting of the committee of experts in Syracuse later this month.
8. New Business
J. McVicker reported that her faculty would like to have the ash bins removed to some distance away from a smoke free entrance. It seems odd to have odors and cigarette butts right at a supposedly smoke free entrance.
Discussion ensued on adding buildings to the smoke free entrance program/policy. Ultimately the Senate suggested language that would make the policy "Every building on campus should have only one smoking entrance." This would mean that every building would have all but one entrance become smoke free. Chair Reddy said he would pass that along to the people responsible at M&O.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney Faculty Secretary Attachment:
J-Term Faculty Survey 2005 Page One
J-Term Faculty Survey 2005 Page Two
Preliminary Report J-Term and Shortened Courses