May 2, 2005
The meeting was called to order by Chair Richard Reddy at 4:01 PM in Fenton 105.
1. Agenda
Chair Reddy announced that two representatives from committees, Carolyn Grady and Wil Neris, had commitments that made it necessary for them to leave before 5:00 PM, and therefore should time be fleeting, their reports would be moved as necessary. With that understanding, the Chair asked for a motion to approve the agenda. A. Klein moved, and T. Taylor seconded. The agenda was approved on a unanimous voice vote.
2. Minutes
T. Taylor moved, and A. Klein seconded that the minutes of the meeting of April 4, 2005, be approved. There being no discussion, the minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.
3. Chair's Report
Chair Reddy explained the nature of the agenda item "Election of a provisional chair of the Senate for 2005-2006" With the possibility that J. Swansinger may not be on campus next year, it was decided at the last meeting that a "provisional" Vice Chair would be elected, to serve as Chair during 2005-2006 only in the event that J. Swansinger no longer was available locally. Chair Reddy indicated that it had been his pleasure to work in the capacity as Chair during the year, and thanked all who made his work easier whether on the Senate Executive Committee, as Senators, as members and chairs of Senate Committees, or as members of the administration.
At this point, Chair Reddy handed the running of the meeting over to J. Swansinger and left the room, saying that he did not wish to interfere with anyone from seeking the nomination. Chair pro tem Swansinger explained that if there were no candidates for the provisional position, R. Reddy had allowed his name to be placed in nomination, and his personal feelings on democratic and open governance were the reason that he had left the room. Nominations from the floor were called for. There were none. Therefore, Richard Reddy's name was placed before the Senate as candidate for "provisional" vice chair 2004-2005/chair 2005-2006. R. Reddy was voted into that position by unanimous voice vote. Loud and long applause was accorded him upon his return to the room.
4. President's Report
President Hefner reported that:
* A new Distinguished Teaching Professor, Bob Booth (Visual Arts), had been approved by the Board of Trustees
* Two Chancellor's Awards had been approved by the Board of Trustees for Fredonia:
o Neil Feit (Teaching)
o Kerrie Wilkes (Librarianship)
* The new Budget Book has been distributed to department offices (the cover letter summary was attached to the agenda)
* Rumors have been circulating that "numerous" positions have been given to Student Affairs; this is not true. Over the past two years, two Student Affairs positions have been held open to assist the campus with budgeting and allocation of positions. This year Student Affairs is getting their positions "back". Dan Tramuta has been appointed to the position of Assoc. VP for Enrollment Management (the only Assoc. VP position in Student Affairs). We are currently searching for a Director of Financial Aid and for a Director of Admissions.
* A Mission Review II team from SUNY Central will be on campus May 4, 2005. A small group of Fredonia administrators and faculty (one from each college, plus R. Reddy) will meet with the visiting team.
* There was an incident last week during the "Take Back the Night" march. Some students at Grissom Hall yelled inappropriate comments. The campus is trying to identify the individuals, and we will be looking at revamping the "Take Back the Night" event to do a better job educating the campus about the issues. The remarks were such that Pres. Hefner wouldn't even quote them because of their inappropriateness.
* "Barnum" (the spring musical) was a fantastic enterprise. Pres. Hefner congratulated Ted Sharon on a job well done.
* The initial induction into the Golden Key National Honor Society was held last week. Over 160 students were involved!
* Fredonia's SIFE team won the regional competition (once again), and Dr. Franklin Krohn is looking forward to the national competition (once again).
* The Convocation Committee has identified Robert Kennedy Jr. as next year's Convocation lecturer. We will try to "nail him down" by the end of exam week, so he will be definitely scheduled.
* Commencement will have an added feature this year; the ceremonial approval of the graduates by the attending faculty will be done as part of the exercises.
* Thanked the Executive Committee of the Senate for all the hard work they'd done during the year.
* Reminded the Senators they were invited to the "Fiesta", at the President's House, on May 6.
* Introduced David Tiffany, our new Vice President of University Advancement to the Senate.
Questions:
N. Feit asked when adjunct positions are transformed back to full-time tenure-track positions, are national searches conducted. Pres. Hefner responded that all tenure-track searches are conducted as national searches.
J. Straight rose to speak to a principal that he feels is important. The approving of the degree candidates should not be just a ceremonial thing; it has meaning. The faculty may have never had to say "No", but there have been times when Deans (or others) have been trying to assuage parents or other forces, and have a student approved for graduation when the student hasn't really fulfilled the requirements. Up to now, in all the cases that J. Straight has been involved in, those problems had been dealt with prior to the approval vote, but there could be a time when such problems have not been ironed out.
D. Reddy offered that the language is usually very carefully couched "subject to the completion of all requirements", or similar wording, and it is a number, not a list of specific names.
C. Telly asked can't we do it as in the past, with a faculty meeting, and then also at the ceremony?
D. Reddy indicated there never have been any objections at any meeting since he has been here.
J. Straight suggested that at a special faculty meeting, representatives of each department know who the potential graduates are, and if there is the chance that an administrator is trying to push through a potential graduate who really ought not to be included, the faculty in the student's department can speak to the issue.
D. Reddy then suggested that the Senate discuss/explore this issue in September. The Senate won't know at this point if there are any problems with potential graduates at this point. The meeting would have to be held at a point after appeals have been dealt with. The appeals will likely be just beginning now. Chair Reddy asked the Senators if they would like to handle the issue in that manner. There was general agreement shown by the nodding of heads.
J. Straight then argued there is a principal here that needs to be honored. It is by the authority of the faculty that degrees are awarded.
It was reiterated that the approval has always been done with a brief few sentences and only numbers provided.
5. Vice President Academic Affairs's Report
Len Faulk thanked all of the Senators and the Executive Committee for all that has been done during the year. It is such an important part of campus governance.
Searches update (since the April meeting): NSS has hired 8, including a Director for the School of Business, with three failed searches (Criminal Justice (impacted by the increased demand in homeland security positions available nationwide); Math Education; and Marketing and Business (higher salaries than what we could offer impacted this)); Education has one offer outstanding, and two failed searches (Literacy, and Curriculum and Instruction)
Academic Master Plan:
VP Faulk suggested that instead of today's look at the Academic Master Plan being a "first reading"; it will be presented for information only. All corrections/additions (and he anticipates there will be the need for such) should be emailed to him. The Senate will have the first reading of the Academic Master Plan at the September meeting in 2005. (A copy of the Academic Master Plan handout is attached to these minutes.) Sophomore Semester Abroad:
Mary Sasso presented a proposal to institute a formal "Sophomore Semester Abroad" component.
She began by saying that this idea was essentially an expansion of the existing "Junior Year Abroad" programs, but with an earlier starting period. This is not a change of policy, because we do allow students with appropriate qualifications to go abroad at any point in there time at Fredonia. It is more a marketing strategy for the international programs, getting the word out to freshmen so they can begin preparations. The Sophomore Semester can have the equivalent of up to five CCC courses. Note it is "up to", so a student may opt for between one and five CCC courses, depending on the offering of the host school.
Questions:
J. Wilson asked if the junior year programs also had the capacity for earning CCC course credit, and the reply was yes, and remember they can do up to 5 courses, so they don't have to have 5 courses that are CCC.
R. Antosh asked how students can do work in non-English speaking countries, as far as CCC especially. M. Sasso indicated that these courses are taught in English, and provided an example of a western civilization course being offered at an institution in Bulgaria, taught in English. Foreign language courses, of course, are taught in whatever the language of the course should be. Also there are maturity concerns, and Fredonia is developing a pre-departure 3-credit course to build into the program.
N. Feit asked if the 3-credit course is offered to freshmen in the fall semester, and wouldn't that have an impact on freshmen being able to prepare for the sophomore semester abroad? Ms. Sasso responded that yes, it would. That is why they are going to be marketing this program heavily during summer orientation. These students will have information that will help them to decide whether they might wish to prepare for such a semester experience in their sophomore year. This 3-credit hour course will cover such topics as being a global citizen, etiquette in other cultures, and how to be a responsible representative of our country when abroad.
[???] asked about the quality of the institutions. Ms. Sasso indicated that right now we depend heavily on other institutions' agreements, and we do not have real quality control, but the new program will be with three institutions that we have had close contact with, and that we will have negotiated with. Only these three institutions will be used in the sophomore year program (and others may be added, as we negotiate with other institutions that we have contacts with). Each course offered at a participating institution will be evaluated as far as our CCC requirements before we allow it to be used as a CCC equivalent.
J. Milgram-Luterman asked if there was a list available of the schools that will be included. M. Sasso was affirmative, and said she could name them right here on the floor if anyone wished.
C. Telly asked if other schools did this in sophomore year. He was aware of junior year abroad programs, but didn't know of any in the sophomore year. Sasso responded that community colleges have gone heavily into international programs over the past few years. She added that Fredonia has sent students whenever they wanted to go, even as freshmen (though she has had some reservations about sending freshmen), as long as they had the qualifications to succeed, we have accommodated our students.
R. Antosh said she hopes that Fredonia encourages students who travel to countries where English is not the official language to participate in language course work. M. Sasso said some students don't need language CCC courses because they have either fulfilled our requirements via Regents testing or have completed the necessary required courses here. Antosh responded saying she wasn't indicating that only CCC language course work should be the consideration, but rather taking the language of the host country perhaps even beyond CCC requirements, in order to gain the full international experience that such travel may afford. Ms. Sasso responded by saying that Fredonia does not require students to take such courses, but we certainly encourage them.
There being no further questions, Chair Reddy reminded the Senate that this was a presentation that was intended to be informational only, and no vote was necessary. The program already exists, and this is just presenting it to a different group of students who might participate.
J. McVicker then asked if this would be an appropriate time to discuss the summer session closing courses issue that had arisen on campus during the past week. Chair Reddy said it would.
Closing of Courses for Summer Session:
Len Faulk indicated that Academic Affairs have been talking about this issue since the emails on ProfTalk. Some of the ideas presented in the emails are excellent. Part of the reasoning for retaining a later closing date might be the local availability of students from other colleges who wish to attend some summer courses at Fredonia. We will work on accommodating the needs of the faculty, based on the discussions on ProfTalk.
J. McVicker asked if the new policy was not going to be applied this year. J. Burke responded saying there will be cancellations, but only after the faculty members who are scheduled to teach the course(s) have been consulted. If, for example, a faculty member knows there are students waiting to register at in-person registration (for whatever reason), s/he can say so, and the course will not be canceled early.
6. Standing Committee Reports
Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee:
C. Grady spoke to the report on the Spring Forum for Professionals and Librarians (appended to the agenda), saying it was for information gathering purposes only.
Questions:
D. Reddy said that language in the report suggesting the Librarians had been left out of committees due to the Senate restructuring had been surprising. No Committee that had Librarians eligible (as part of the Administration segment) now excluded them. He also indicated that there had been expressed to the Executive Committee other problems relating to Librarians and committees which the Executive Committee (or other committee(s)) would look at in the future.
K. Wilkes then said that some of the problem lies in the view of Librarians (who are faculty in the eyes of the Board of Trustees) are sometimes not viewed as faculty locally because of their being included in the "Administrative" or "Professional" category as far as governance is concerned. There are certain committees that do not have "Professional" representation that Librarians could be involved with, and that was what the comments made at the Forum were pointing out. The Librarians may request some action in the fall with regard to this issue.
Student Affairs Committee:
Wil Neris, Chair of the Committee, briefly reviewed the activities of the committee during the past year.
There were no questions.
Academic Affairs Committee:
The annual report was appended to the agenda.
No questions were raised concerning the annual report.
Report on the academic quality of time-shortened courses (appended to the agenda):
Joan Burke (Graduate Council) and Joseph Straight (Academic Affairs Committee) opened this discussion by saying the proposal before the Senate had been reviewed by both of their committees, plus the Joint Chairs Meeting, and had been discussed at the April meeting of the Fredonia University Senate. They went briefly through the three main points of the report, stressing the call for syllabi for time-shortened versions of courses that would be subject to normal department and College review. The report highlights departmental responsibility as it relates to academic quality.
Chair Reddy interjected for the Senate that this was a policy that has been moved by the Committee, and discussion would now open.
R. Antosh asked if these recommendations will be given to the departments. If yes, how? J. Straight responded that in essence they already have via the Joint Chairs meeting. We can impose on Mr. Calarco to prepare a standard course evaluation form for time-shortened courses (as he has done for normal courses), which may be used by departments not wishing to do other than a standard objective-test type evaluation.
B. Simon said English thinks this is a good idea. However, English wondered if "all students" meant such courses as internships, where students are usually in such low numbers that they would be easily identifiable. J. Burke responded that there is a policy in place that courses with less than five students are not evaluated with such concerns in mind.
C. Telly suggested that the School of Business has voted to offer no courses in a J-Term like time frame. The School did not say that other departments should not, but the School of Business felt it was impossible to do so for the courses they offer.
R. Antosh suggested that there may be more appropriate ways of offering courses, or perhaps specifically designed courses for short terms might work for a J-Term session, but she was still concerned that it is very difficult to design courses (such as are offered by Modern Languages) for such limited time periods.
J. Burke offered that this policy is not just aimed at J-Term. It is for any course that is offered in a non-traditional, time-shortened period.
C. Telly added that the School of Business also wanted to be sure that the faculty were making the decisions. At no time has this been presented for adoption [as a non-pilot experimental offering. - ed. by Fac. Secretary] The Senate has never voted on whether there should BE a J-Term. This report assumes J-Term will be offered. The idea of J-Term was brought to the Senate already determined, and the committee that originated the idea was 95% administrators. We should at least have a vote on whether we want a J-Term. The School of Business voted not to have any online offerings or J-Term type of courses.
D. Reddy suggested that such a motion could be raised in New Business. There is a motion on the floor now, which is to adopt the policy as presented.
C. Telly said he would vote against this policy.
D. Reddy suggested that this policy is not just about J-Term, but any time-shortened course.
C. Telly retorted that he didn't see this as being "new business", since he has been trying to secure a vote on the issue of having J-Term in the past, as well as today.
T. Rywick offered that if he were to vote for the policy presented, it would be like putting the cart before the horse.
D. Reddy suggested that this issue is principally about the items numbered 1 through 3, despite the last sentence.
M. Vink asked does this policy also affect the long-distance courses. Both J. Straight and J. Burke answered no.
S. Kershnar said that he felt it would be better to vote on accepting J-Term and then vote on this policy. J. Straight pointed out that faculty may continue to offer courses that don't fit the usual semester model. This says someone in authority says to the faculty member "show me your plan", it will only improve oversight.
H. Jacobsen asked if these courses will not come before the Academic Affairs Committee. J. Straight indicated that no, the courses have been approved and the Committee (or Graduate Council) looks at all courses as being traditional semester-long courses when evaluating them. If these courses are to be offered in a non-traditional time-shortened way, we think it is good to have departmental review (or even the Deans also) so that those in the discipline at the very least get a chance to determine if this course should or can be taught well in such a format. We aren't saying that these courses will never be reviewed by Academic Affairs Committee or Graduate Council, but right now we don't see a need for such a review. We do see the need for having departmental responsibility over the quality of offerings.
H. Jacobsen said that in item "1", the word "should" is used. Who should? The department or the administrator? J. Burke answered that it depends on what the department procedures are. There are as many procedures as there are departments!
J. McVicker asked concerning untenured faculty concerns. What if an untenured faculty is offering a course on an experimental basis, using an experimental time frame and probably new teaching ideas? How will this impact the decision for reappointment or tenure? Will these courses carry the same weight as their traditional counterparts? Renewal and tenure guidelines are by department. Summer courses are not part of the normal academic year, and many departments do not include them in such evaluative decisions. We need to think about this in this light, as well.
B. Simon said this may be a "past practice" issue, too. If there is a change in the curricular chair, there is potential for problems. J. Burke said most of these time-shortened courses are for a 1-2 week period. Simon continued, this policy may have unintended consequences. J. Straight said there may be a problem down the road, but this policy doesn't create it.
D. Reddy interjected that department chairs always have the reviewing role in terms of curricular offerings.
N. Feit spoke in terms of summer session courses being one thing, and if J-Term courses were offered over 3 weeks instead of one or two, we'd probably be looking at this issue differently.
B. Rogers reminded the Senate that the assumption that no courses can be done in these shortened timeframes is inaccurate. Non-traditional courses can be done in very intensive ways. He offered as an example a course for math educators that was held eight-hours-a-day over a five day period. J. Burke added that there are summer session one week courses that have had no scrutiny, and we are complaining here about 2-week J-Term offerings.
[???] asked how do snow days affect J-Term? J. Burke informed the Senate that two Saturdays are built into the J-Term schedule, and all students know that should there be a day when classes are cancelled; there will be meetings on the Saturday. In the two years of J-Term we've only had one half day canceled. (Quite miraculously, she added.)
C. Telly argued that he still felt we should vote on J-Term first. We should not be putting the cart before the horse. I will move such.
J. McVicker then said that while she agrees with Dr. Telly on the issue of needing a vote on J-Term as such, this policy really is for time-shortened courses at any time, and is not simply a J-Term issue.
C. Telly said this faculty has never had the chance to vote on it. I move it!
T. Rywick spoke to the issue of submitting syllabi (point 3). J. Straight said it would be the same way that syllabi are reviewed now: Dept., Dean, VPAA, and CCC if it is a CCC course. Rywick then said the course would be allowed after approval at what level? Why not actually propose it? J. Straight indicated the committees had.
At this point S. Kershnar seconded the Telly motion.
D. Reddy said there is a motion on the floor. Telly's motion was not as a substitute motion. We can, if we wish, choose to rework it as a slightly different motion. Does the body wish to discuss J-Term now?
We will vote on whether to continue this as a discussion of the existence of J-Term... those voting AYE wish to have such a discussion and vote; those voting NO do not wish to at this time.
A voice vote was too close to call. After a show of hands, the NAYS won.
The discussion of the proposed policy continued.
J. McVicker suggested that perhaps the Academic Affairs Committee and the Graduate Council could bring this to the Senate in the fall. We need to debate the issue of having a J-Term.
Chair Reddy instructed those speaking to please speak to the motion that is on the floor.
B. Simon criticized the use of the passive voice ("be submitted"), and asked if the policy assumes that the course has already been vetted by the Department Chair. J. Burke responded affirmatively.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote. The motion to approve the policy passed by voice vote, with 6 abstentions.
The hour being 5:30, the Chair called for a motion to extend the meeting until 5:45 PM. N. Feit moved and K. Wilkes seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
New Minor in School Counseling Psychology:
J. Straight presented the Academic Affairs Committee report on this proposed new minor. He indicated that the Psychology Department had consulted with the College of Education, and the proposal had been endorsed by the Professional Education Council.
T. Steinberg asked if this program would qualify anyone to engage in school counseling. T. Rywick responded in the negative. He added that this was intended to benefit students by exposing them to the issues and skills necessary should they be interested in pursuing a school counseling career. They might cover as an example aspects of the developmental process, and/or tests and measurements in greater depth than most psychology majors.
J. Milgram-Luterman asked if this changes any of the other Psychology minors. T. Rywick answered that it wouldn't; it would be an additional third minor offered.
With no further discussion, a vote was called for by the Chair. The proposed minor passed with a unanimous voice vote.
New Major in Applied Mathematics:
J. Straight presented the Academic Affairs Committee's approval of a proposed new major in Applied Mathematics. He informed the body that this was currently a track in the Mathematics program, and having it converted to a separate major would provide it more visibility. He added that this major would also have to be approved by the University of the State of New York.
C. Telly rose to speak in favor saying that the School of Business liked this because it has finance and economics track. J. Straight added that a few very good students in math have taken that track and done very well with it.
Without further discussion, the Chair called for the vote. The proposed major passed with a unanimous voice vote.
New Interdisciplinary Major in Sport Management and Exercise:
J. Straight presented the Academic Affairs Committee's approval of a new interdisciplinary major in Sport Management and Exercise. This was developed by Charles Davis and Bruce Klonsky in the Health, Wellness and Recreation Department. It would be one of the majors that hopefully will be able to build an audience and eventually become a full major outside of the "interdisciplinary" category.
C. Telly said the School of Business has had many majors move into professional sports organizations, such as the Buffalo Bills, the Buffalo Sabers, even some of the Cleveland teams. The faculty of the School of Business think this major will have excellent prospects.
A-M. Klein asked if we have the University has the facilities and equipment to support this major. C. Davis responded, saying that a research lab will be constructed over the coming summer, and there are library resources that will continue to be added to.
M. Karnes said that Cortland has just introduced a Master's in International Sport Management, so there is a graduate track available to students who major in this program.
There being no further discussion, the vote was called for by the Chair. The proposed major passed by unanimous voice vote.
Role of the University Catalog in Academic Affairs:
J. Straight told the body that the Academic Affairs Committee had taken a look at the proposal after the discussion in April, and wanted everyone to know that the Committee is not proposing to eliminate the print catalog. They think we ought to change the way we think about the catalog, and that having it online could facilitate changes more easily. However, there is nothing urgent about this proposal, and he would be happy to hold it back for discussion in the fall.
Wilkes/Telly moved and seconded that this be tabled.
There was no discussion on the motion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote. The proposal is tabled until the Sept. meeting.
Graduate Council
Proposal regarding online courses:
J. Burke reported that the Graduate Council has had some requests from graduate faculty members concerning the policy adopted at the Nov., 2004, meeting of the University Senate, which essentially states that no online courses may be given unless there is a traditional form of the course offered. That policy was never reviewed by the Graduate Council before it was brought before the Senate. The Graduate Council wishes to waive this policy for graduate courses. It is not easy to always have a traditional course offering for every graduate course that is offered online.
M. Vink in discussion said that this is a bad idea. Teaching is about interacting, especially at the graduate level. There needs to be higher quality interaction at the graduate level.
J. Straight suggested that this also impacts a sort of "truth in advertising" as far as frequency codes. When a course is coded as a "B", which means it meets every year, but does not indicate that it is online for some or many of those offerings, we mislead students. Most students when they read a frequency code expect the course to be a traditional in-person course. We really need to be careful about the information we give students. We need to come up with something, such as "B - may be offered online", which would be more honest. He also said he thought the wording of the policy wasn't as harsh as J. Burke had interpreted.
J. Burke responded that she and the Graduate Council read the language to be more stringent than what J. Straight suggested.
H. Jacobson asked about the rationale for the policy that now exists. Doesn't it protect our lines?
D. Reddy provided some history, saying he thought the issue came up at first because some computer science students did not wish to be required to take a course or courses that were only offered online.
J. Burke added that graduate students are often very grateful for the opportunity to take a course online. This can be due to time constraints, distance issues, etc.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote. The policy as presented was passed by voice vote.
The hour having reached 5:45 PM, the Chair called for a motion to extend the meeting until 6:00 PM. [????/?????] moved and seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Planning and Budget Committee:
B. Simon said the report was more informational in nature, and principally describes the changes in the Committee's bylaws that had been approved earlier by the Senate. The Committee will have its official report given orally in the fall.
There were no questions.
College Core Curriculum Committee:
Chair Reddy stepped down from the chair to give the report. He told the body of a meeting he attended in Syracuse last week. By the end of November, we need to have determined how this campus is going to deal with the "strengthened campus-based assessment" of written communication, creative thinking, and mathematics areas of our general education program. This decision will be for 2006-07 and beyond. The proposal will come to the Senate in the fall semester. The current schedule for review/evaluation (not using the new "strengthened campus-based assessment" measures) has written communication and mathematics being done next year (2005-06). This morning the CCC Committee met and Peter Sinden, our campus director of assessment, suggested we not do an evaluation of the written communication component next year, but rather we should postpone that for two years. The written communication is probably the most challenging of the three to assess, and takes a lot of effort on the part of faculty. For fall 2006, we can assess the mathematics component, and because the math faculty feel comfortable with the new criteria being worked on by faculty experts in mathematics, we could use the new criteria.
D. Reddy also told the body that Patty Francis (sp.?), co-chair of the GEAR Committee that oversees the SUNY-wide general education program, will be on campus in October, and will be attending the October meeting of the University Senate. Part of that meeting will be given over to a discussion of the issues surrounding gen ed assessment.
7. SUNY Faculty Senator's Report
B. Rogers reported on issues that had been raised/discussed at the April plenary:
* "Academic Bill of Rights" seems to be stalled in the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees; the SUNY Faculty Senate wants to put together a panel discussion on "Academic Freedom", and has asked all local senates to hold off on any action with regard to the "Academic Bill of Rights".
* In the sector meetings (our sector is "University Colleges"), discussion about the "homogenization of SUNY" cropped up. It appears that the Provost doesn't understand the difference between the University Colleges and the University Centers, and thinks that all of SUNY should operate the same way. The Provost is really pushing for uniform assessment of faculty for reappointment and tenure decisions. Bob told the senators to "really dig in on that one."
* Mission Review II: some campuses have had very few or no faculty input or participation in the local committees.
* Workload: some campuses (particularly Oneonta) have been hiding adjuncts by hiring them as 3-year lecturers. These campuses are essentially "cooking the books" as far as teacher/student ratios, etc. This may be affecting representation in the SUNY Faculty Senate, and probably is affecting the operation of the "BAP" formulas that drive resource allocation.
* There was some talk about library funding, but that has been referred back to committee.
* Academic misconduct: There is some movement toward developing some guidelines or policies on this issue. North Dakota State University was mentioned as a possible model. Bob suggested that we might wish to look into policies at other institutions, and that the SUNY Faculty Senate would be as well.
* Evaluation of administration: It seems that Fredonia is one of only about four SUNY units that evaluates its administration. Bob said he suggested to the SUNY Faculty Senate that we ought to evaluate SUNY Central Administration as well.
* New Chair of SUNY Faculty Senate: a new chair is taking over at the SUNY Faculty Senate, Charles Vidalis (????), who is from Upstate Medical.
B. Simon offered that UUP is in favor of longer-term contracts for adjuncts, but the colleges should be required to report tenure- and non-tenure- track faculty as separate numbers.
8. New Business
There was no new business offered.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney Faculty Secretary
Back to Meeting Minutes
© 2006 SUNY Fredonia