The meeting was called to order by Chair Mary Carney at 4:05 PM in Fenton 105.
Chair Carney asked for a motion to amend the agenda to replace the Governance Officer's Report with a report from the Chair of the CCC Committee. Moved/seconded Reddy/Telly. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Carney called for a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Moved/seconded Reddy/Stoddart. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Carney asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of Dec. 5, 2005. Moved/seconded Reddy/Wilkes. No discussion. Approved by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Carney spoke in regard to the e-mail that had been sent to Senators prior to the meeting. She reiterated that former Chair Jacqy Swansinger had resigned once she accepted the Interim Dean of Graduate Studies and Lifelong Learning position. Mary Carney, as Vice Chair, filled the vacancy, as called for in the bylaws. Instead of having an election, which couldn't happen until March at the earliest, the Executive Committee feels that Reneta Barneva should be appointed as Vice Chair of the Fredonia University Senate until the end of this year, and we will elect a new Vice Chair in the normal election cycle. This is a motion of a Committee and requires no second.
Sen. Simon asked if Dr. Barneva was happy with this plan. Dr. Barneva replied that she was.
There being no further discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Chair Carney congratulated Dr. Barneva, and expressed her thank
Chair Carney opened the discussion with an explanation of the document "The Fredonia Plan: Creating our Learning Community" (attachment to the agenda.) This was put together by members of the Executive Committee after the two days of meetings held just prior to the opening of the Spring 2006 semester. A summary of the major points brought out in those meetings was given as a handout ("Fredonia Plan Workshop Summaries,"attached to these minutes.) Chair Carney provided a synopsis of the summaries, and the document on the floor. She informed the body that Pres. Hefner expressed no objection to the proposal.
Sen. Jacobson asked who will be there to explain this to the Task Force? Chair Carney responded that there is no answer to that just yet, but she has volunteered to serve with the Task Force in her role as Senate Chair.
Sen. Speilmans spoke to the point of including Dr. Richard Weist's and Dr. Bruce Simon's document "Rethinking the Fredonia Plan" into the current revision, indicating that he felt this revision does not meet the need of having a separate top-level goal centering on scholarly and creative activity.
Sen. Grady suggested we might wish to be careful with how we handle the document that is on the floor. How will such language be interpreted by the press and others off campus? Will the emphasis on international faculty be interpreted as giving preference to the hiring of such faculty, as opposed to home-grown faculty? We have to think about the perceptions and repurcussions. Additionally, he wondered if the Committee members would be reading the minutes of this discussion.
Sen. Speilmans moved to include the items included in "Rethinking the Fredonia Plan" as put forth by Drs. Weist and Simon, be included in the final version of the Fredonia Plan as a separate top-level goal. Sen. McKinney seconded.
Sen. Telly asked if this would mean that both goals/ideas would be put together? Sen. Speilmans said that the Weist/Simons document would be included as a separate top-level goal with appropriate action steps.
Sen. Simon suggested that he wonders if so much stress should be placed on this, because we already do a lot in the area of scholarly and creative activity. He indicated that he would like to see point 1.1.1 in the proposed document be cut because we already do this. To add the Weist/Simon document might make the final version wordy and long. Some effort was made to condense it, that was why it was action 1.1 in this document as a goal. Perhaps including the "Rethinking the Fredonia Plan” document as it now exists would be potentially embarrassing to Fredonia if people interpret it as our faculty don't do those things now.
Sen. Spielmans said that he wasn't sure what is being done and what is not. He would rather submit the Weist/Simons document as is, and let the Committee tinker with it.
Sen. McKinney asked what is the goal of the Fredonia Plan. Is it supposed to include only what is new that we're not doing? Sen. Simon indicated he sees the need for a goal that brings out the idea that we care about good scholarship. Sen. McKinney responded that there is only one part that deals with recruitment, and Sen. Simon answered that that was new.
Sen. Telly agreed with Sen. Jacobson, these concepts should be clear to everybody, but what we have is not clear; it is very general, and it should be very specific. It seems that the "Rethinking" document was trying to bring more specifics into the Plan. Remember, the faculty is the university, not the buildings. Even with horrible buildings, you can have a great school because of the faculty.
Sen. Steinberg rose to argue that the line of discussion was inappropriate. We have a motion to rewrite a portion of what has been presented.
Sen. Speilmans said that his intention was not to mandate the use of the "Rethinking" document, but only to make certain the ideas expressed in it are considered. After a few minutes of further clarification and elucidation, Sen. Speilmans withdrew his motion. He then continued concerning recruitment and action item 1.1.1: the language "articulate goals" is pretty minimal. The Task Force should make these of equal importance, perhaps using language such as "demonstrate excellence or potential for excellence" or scholarship and/or creative work, as well as for teaching.
Sen. Reddy offered that the rationale for all this is, within our community of learners, to facilitate, encourage, and stimulate the learning of our students.
Sen. McVicker reported that in discussions within the English Department, faculty have noted a huge lack of visibility for the graduate program. If we are trying to expand our graduate programs, we have to find a place for scholarship and creative endeavors.
Sen. Wilkes asked about point 2.3. Technology is not just hardware, and where is information literacy? We need a broader definition of technology to be included. There was a much broader definition presented at the workshops. Will there be such a definition? Chair Carney indicated that she felt there was support for such coming out of the workshops.
Sen. Simon indicated that just this morning there was a meeting of Committee members (faculty charged with rewriting) and integrating this into learning goals was discussed.
Sen. Sharon asked if the University Senate was going to approve the ultimate final revision?
Sen. Reddy and Chair Carney responded that essentially all actions of the Senate are advisory [emphasis added by Secretary] to the President.
Sen. Sharon then moved to amend the motion on the floor by adding to it "Once a revision has been prepared, it will be submitted to the University Senate for review, further discussion and approval." Sen. McVicker seconded.
SUNY Senator Rogers asked if we really want it to be restricted, or do we want to encourage input from anyone in this body. Chair Carney informed the group that we could ask the Planning & Budget Committee to look at it again. Sen. Simon informed the Senate that the BlackBoard site is still up (for reading documents, comment and discussion,) and all one has to do is register for the "class”. He will approve anyone who registers. SUNY Sen. Rogers then suggested a more mundane approach, send an e-mail to the Chair. Chair Carney then provided her e-mail address ( Mary.Carney@fredonia.edu ) and stated that she would pass along all e-mails she received to the Committee.
[At this point an amendment to the amendment was proposed. The Secretary's notes are unclear, but suggest that wording "for an approval and continued discussion" was added. The Secretary thinks that this amendment reinforced the point that input from e-mails, the BlackBoard site, and other written comments will be provided to the "writing Committee." his amendment to the amendment was passed by unanimous voice vote. Apologies to all for illegible notes.]
Sen. Milgram-Luterman asked if there is a deadline for this re-write of the Fredonia Plan. The answer was "this spring". Chair Carney interjected that Pres. Hefner would like it to be for the March 6 meeting of the Senate!
Sen. Spielmans asked if there is a plan for when there will be a new draft. Sen. Simon responded, and indicated the "writing Committee" consists of Keary Howard, Karen Klose, Liz Lee, Anna Thibodeau, and himself.
The Committee motion on the Fredonia Plan as amended passed by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Carney thanked the members of the original Task Force for their hard work.
Sen. McVicker spoke to Sen. Grady's point concerning "open meetings" and reminded the body that anything on the web site is public record.
Chair Carney informed the body that Pres. Hefner had expected to be at this meeting, but a hastily called meeting in NYC tomorrow prevented his being here. He is en-route to NYC as we meet.
Dr. Karnes, representing Dr. Horvath, spoke to a handout, "Report from Academic Affairs," and said that any questions or comments on any of the items included could be addressed to Dr. Horvath after Feb. 8, 2006.
Dr. Straight, Chair of the Committee, presented three issues (attached to the agenda
1. Name change for Department of Chemistry to Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
Sen. Simon asked how the Biology Department felt about this. Dr. Straight responded that his understanding was that Biology was consulted and had no objection.
Without further discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
2. Proposal for a new major: Women's Studies (attached to the agenda.)
Sen. Eikenburg asked if this would lead to a degree in Indpendent Studies. Dr. Straight confirmed that to be the case, and that the transcript will indicate the degree concentration was Women's Studies, along with the degree. He added that this has been a minor for about ten years.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman asked if this was an interim step toward having a B.A. in Women's Studies. Dr. Straight said there is precedent for such movement, and cited Criminal Justice and Media Arts as two programs that followed such a path.
Sen. Feit asked what the term transnational (as opposed to international) meant. Dr. Johnston-Robledo responded saying that "international" is more often used when referring to nations, and "transnational" is used when looking at interactions among peoples
Without further discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
3. Repository of Course Syllabi (included with the agenda.)
Dr. Straight presented the Committee's motion regarding archiving course syllabi. He indicated that the current policy (having copies of syllabi placed with Dean, Dept., Library and CCC Committee (if for a CCC course) ) has pretty much been forgotten by many. Depositing course syllabi has become "hit and miss" over time. This proposal was brought about by faculty-voiced concerns about storage facilities.
Sen. Wilkes commented that retention policies for archival purposes in New York (and possibly the Federal government) are "at least seven years." Electronic copies are not considered acceptable for archival purposes (due to issues such as migration when new technology replaces old technology.) She suggested we leave determination of the Library part of this proposal open-ended until we hire the new archivist
Sen. Grady asked what is the Library doing with these. Sen. Wilkes responded they are kept in the Special Collections area. Some have not been received, but we do have a majority of them in paper.
Sen. Feit spoke to the issue saying that his department has an archive going back 15 years or more. The first point doesn't suggest that we put all that on the web, does it? Dr. Straight responded, no that is not the intention.
Sen. Grady asked if someone couldn't make a "container" [template – Sec.] for these, so there could be uniformity across campus.
Sen. Simon suggested talking to Janet Mayer about such, because the new Angel course management software might be able to do this in its portfolio functionality.
Without further discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Steinberg then spoke to the issue of CCC courses, saying the syllabi issue caused him to recall that the initial arguments for the new CCC were made saying that one Social Science course or one Natural Science course was too little. He suggested that many faculty are feeling the need for a second writing course. When the new CCC was passed, the overall guidelines said that the CCC Coordinator (or Committee) will review syllabi every semester to see if courses are in compliance… He urged that this policy be adhered to, since student writing is one of those that are to be taught across the curriculum.
Sen. McVicker then spoke to the issue again, that everything done in this body is for "public consumption." We can set ourselves up to be out of compliance with the mandate, if we lose control of our own content. At the very least we need to monitor our own syllabi. If we do not, we will be open for a lot of potential difficulties.
Dr. Reddy, Chair of the Committee, brought an information item (included in the handout "Revising the Strengthened Campus-Based Assessment Methodology for the Critical Thinking Area.") He reported that by Feb. 15, 2006, we must send to Albany our plans for assessing the three areas of Written Communication, Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning, and Critical Thinking. The basic approach for these assessments at Fredonia was approved at the Senate meeting in November 2005, but that did not include exact methodological language. Since then "life has changed a bit." We've had reaction from a sub-committee, and in mid-January the GEAR group issued a new 6-8 page document with guidelines. The CCC Committee wants to keep the Senate informed.
There has always been the issue of motivating students to participate fully in assessment efforts. The ACT test we will use for critical thinking does have some issues along those lines. First-time freshmen are not a problem, we can get them during Summer Orientation. However we have to have a 20% sample of those later in their career at Fredonia. We propose to do this in the second semester of the Junior year for students who were first year freshman at Fredonia. We will incentivize this by offering a full credit, so that credit and the score of the ACT test will become part of their record. In addition, the ACT will issue certificates to those who do better than the national average on the critical thinking test.
Sen. Jacobson asked how we intend to inform and contact the students. Dr. Reddy said that we are still working on that. We don't know if it will fly or not at the GEAR level. (GEAR will not have to know about the information literacy test, which is a local assessment tool.) In essence, we will have 20% of Juniors who were first-semester freshmen take two tests, each lasting about 45 minutes. We will try to let those students know how valuable the information Fredonia obtains from these tests is so they will feel that they really ought to take this seriously.
Sen. McKinney spoke about her concerns with the methodology. Are you going to invite students, thus making this self-selecting. This will provide inflated data because poor students will not take the test. Dr. Reddy responded that this was a possibility.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman said that one issue bothered her, that of having the ACT score become part of the student's permanent record. If they feel they will be able to do well, they will take it. Dr. Reddy indicated that "permanent record" could be interpreted in a number of ways. It could be retained in a file, but not on the transcript, for example.
Sen. Grady asked how this was to be graded? Dr. Reddy replied that it probably would be an S/U grade. If they agreed to participate and did, the grade would be an "S"
Sen. [name missed] stated that he/she understood the need for motivation, but 1 credit for 1.8 hours for a credit diminishes the worth of a credit.
Dr. McCormick spoke to this, pointing out that there might be a rule that makes sure that credits are justified. When she was involved in a course with a fourth credit, she recalls the Registrar's office asking what kind of work would be done during the extra 700 minutes that that credit represented.
SUNY Sen. Rogers said that he thought that student names were not supposed to be attached to assessment results. Dr. Reddy responded that we will get test results back, but won't know for which names. The individual results will be mailed to the student. The University could just get the average. Dr. Rogers then said the proposal says "student's score on the exam will be a permanent part of his/her academic record." Dr. Reddy responded that "student's score" should probably read "student's participation."
Sen. Spielmans reiterated that poor students will not want to do this, and 1 credit is too high.
Sen. Wilkes made the observation that for information management across the curriculum, it is very difficult to obtain participation for assessment purposes. We tried all sorts of options, with little success. We need a time to be set aside for the entire faculty to be able to accomplish assessment tasks.
Dr. Reddy said that he, too, had a similar reaction to the offering of the 1 credit. When one thinks about it, our students have worked on these areas across the curriculum in a variety of courses (ideally) over five or six semesters.
Sen. Simon suggested getting around the need for an incentive… perhaps make it a requirement of graduation. Dr. Reddy responded saying GEAR only pays for a 20% sample to be tested. All the others tested if it becomes a requirement would be on Fredonia's dollar. There are ways to try to encourage a broad spectrum of students to participate.
Sen. J. Wilson reiterated the concern with the self-selection aspect. Dr. Reddy responded that many forms of our methodologies have flaws. We aren't likely to publish these results, and we may get meaningful information.
Sen. Rogers disagreed with the earlier position of Dr. Reddy with regard to students having worked on these issues over 5 or 6 semesters. The students receive credit when they take the courses Dr. Reddy referred to. This single credit would be on top of those already earned. And as far as graduation requirements, you have to be careful. CUNY is having lawsuits over an exit examination they added as a requirement.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman raised the issue of random-ness of the sample, especially if we are inviting participation. Dr. Reddy questioned being able to get a true random sample, if there were no incentive.
Sen. Wilkes offered that these assessment sessions tend to be a low priority for the students.
The Chair, noting the hour, asked for a motion to extend the meeting for 10 minutes. Telly/Grady moved and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Sen. Grady suggested having requirements for assessment tests. You could get your 20% for this test, and then test the others on different competencies. Dr. Reddy replied that these tests are done on 3-year cycles, and there are legal problems with these types of changes, as has been noted with the CUNY situation.
Dr. McCormick reiterated that she was not sure we could do the 1 credit hour. The Registrar requires justification. And wouldn't this have to go through Academic Affairs Committee? Dr. Reddy: not necessarily, if the course already exists, such as a Directed Study or Independent Studies course.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman said that 1 credit hour wouldn't be any incentive for Music students.
Sen. McVicker said she would oppose this being done as Independent Studies course work.
Dr. Straight asked a point of information: SUNY does not require a 20% random sample? Dr. Reddy indicated that we try to be random, but SUNY (and we) want to have at least a representative sample.
SUNY Sen. Rogers suggested instead of trying to get 20% of serious students, might we just try to get 20% of all the possible students, and if we get goof offs, then throw it back at SUNY. Dr. Reddy said we are trying to do what they've asked us to do in a reasonable way.
Chair Carney reminded the body that this is an informational item only, but motions may be made, if the body so wishes.
Sen. Schwalbe moved that the Fredonia University Senate goes on record opposing giving a credit for this type of assessment activity. The motion was seconded [missed by whom.] The motion passed by voice vote.
J-TERM Proposal ("Proposal Regarding J-Term") attached to these minutes, plus "J-Term 2004” and "2005" handouts, also attached to these minutes)
Sen. Feit suggested that as a member of the group of faculty who brought this motion to the Senate initially, he would be willing to re-write. The Chair suggested a motion to table with possible revisions, which was moved and seconded.
Sen. McVicker asked that the revised motion please be circulated with the agenda of the next meeting (or before).
With no further discussion, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Dr. Khalid Siddiqui, our alternate University Senator, gave some remarks which appear attached to these minutes.
The Chair called for a motion to extend the meeting by 5 minutes. The motion was moved/seconded, and passed by unanimous voice vote.
SUNY Sen. Rogers then took the floor and told the body that some new issues were coming up. One of these is faculty workload, looking at how faculty have been doing "extra things" and experiencing workload "creep." Dr. Siddiqui added that there was support for a Task Force to be created to gather data at the Senate Plenary.
Sen. Simon suggested there needs to be a joint effort with UUP because these issues are part of our working conditions and have contractual considerations. Sen. Rogers indicated the SUNY Senate does want to work with UUP on this issue.
Chair Carney reported that she had received an e-mail thanking the campus for its support of the faculty at the SUNY School of Ceramics at Alfred University. In the e-mail all were asked to lay low for a while, since some activity was happening in relation to these issues.
Chair Carney asked if there was any New Business to be brought before the body? Hearing none, she asked for a motion to adjourn. McKinney/Telly moved/seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney, Faculty Secretary