Chair Mary Carney called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM in Fenton 105.
The Chair asked for a motion to amend the agenda by postponing discussion on the new campus e-mail policy until the April meeting. Such a motion was made and seconded. The amendment to the agenda passed on unanimous voice vote. The Chair then asked for a motion approving the amended agenda. This motion was also made and seconded, and the amended agenda was approved by unanimous voice vote.
The Chair asked for a motion approving the minutes of the meeting of February 6, 2006. This motion was made and seconded. The following corrections were raised:
Sen. Julia Wilson pointed out that on page 10 she is said to have "reiterated" when actually her comment was more of a response.
Sen. Bruce Simon suggested that page 2, paragraph 5, where the term "recruitment" is used, that the term should actually be "resources." The discussion was concerning resources available, not recruitment. He also pointed out that the formal name of the new Women's Studies degree is wrong in the minutes. The minutes state it as "Independent Studies," where it should correctly be "Interdisciplinary Studies."
With those corrections noted, the minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.
The Chair announced that Pres. Hefner had approved all the actions taken by the Senate at the last meeting.
Chair Carney then opened discussion on the Fredonia Plan (final 2/20/06 The Fredonia Plan --- attached to the agenda.)
She pointed out that the Action Item 11 that was included in the copy attached to the agenda had actually been changed prior to coming to the Senate, and the change is reflected in a handout, appended to these minutes:"Amend Fredonia Plan attachment:" That language is what will be in the document (unless it is amended here during this meeting.)
The Senate went through the proposed Fredonia Plan using each major goal as the focus of discussion.
Sen. Neal Feit spoke to Action Item 6, saying that the Philosophy Department was opposed to the mandatory capstone experience. Philosophy felt the only way they could comply would be to institute some sort of Senior Seminar, adding a course that they felt was not needed, and would divert personnel from other teaching duties.
Sen. Bruce Simon suggested that departments might wish to consider the portfolio review method as a possible option as a capstone experience. He encouraged departments to look at that option seriously.
Sen. Ted Schwalbe argued that it might not be appropriate for all majors to have a capstone experience. To require a capstone experience is an action that he disagrees with. In Communications, some major programs have capstone requirements, while others do not need such a requirement of students, and the Department has decided not to have such an experience for those majors.
Sen. Mike Grady asked a question about the proposed Center for Teaching and Learning: will this take a faculty line away from teaching. In Action Item 3 there is no mention of a "Director," yet in Action Item 4 a "Director" is mentioned. Chair Carney indicated that it was her understanding that the campus would be hiring a person for this position. Sen. Simon agreed with that interpretation, and he said that he was surprised to see that the language in that portion was not the same as in the original draft, when he thought the Writing Committee had made no change in language there. Both he and the Chair felt there had been some sort of error of a "cut and paste" nature. Sen. Simon will check into this further.
Sen. Grady continued saying that if this is going to take a faculty line, he would not be in favor of it. Faculty lines for teaching are more important. He also raised the point that the Senate had asked for some kind of budget statement to accompany this new draft, and there is nothing here of that nature. The Chair said that issue had been raised and the response that was given was essentially that "We cannot commit resources while not knowing what resources we are going to have to use."
Sen. Dick Reddy moved his motion #2 (handout of his motions are attached to the minutes, "Motions to Amend the Fredonia Plan Document Dick Reddy." Sen. Simon seconded. Sen. Reddy said this motion is essentially an editorial change, and is explained fully in the rationale.
Sen. Joni Milgram-Luterman asked if a capstone is only one of the three general types presented. Sen. Reddy responded, saying that the language doesn't specify what people actually do in a capstone. His concern is that he doesn't want to see the spirit of a capstone experience lost. Sen. Milgram-Luterman then raised the issue of some type of evaluation possibly being needed.
Sen. Dani McKinney then asked who's doing this evaluation. Sen. Reddy responded that it is part of the plan to assess, whatever group does it.
Sen. Schwalbe then asked about the final paragraph in Sen. Reddy's amendment: where is that in Action Item 6? Sen. Reddy responded the phrase in the quotes is from Action Item 6. Sen. Schwalbe then asked if this wasn't adding to the original Action Item. Sen. Reddy said, yes, it was adding some.
Sen. McKinney then asked if a department has a capstone experience where there is an evaluation, we'd have to evaluate everything. Sen. Reddy responded saying yes, this is a new expectation of the programs (and it is not a CCC driven expectation.) Sen. McKinney posited that a department would have to submit something to be evaluated, some sort of formal presentation (not just in the department… possibly have to send it to the Academic Affairs Committee, for example). Sen. Reddy responded that it is the responsibility of the Deans in the plan.
Sen. Schwalbe raised the point that the proposed amendment would include "Should evaluate" or "should be evaluated" type language; who does this on a continuing basis? How can you evaluate "student self-reflection and analysis of their learning and experiences" in a course? Even to do that with respect to a portfolio requirement. Evaluation of these will have to be looked at… by the department or some other body. Sen. Reddy responded, saying that the "who" is not specified in the plan, the spirit of the amendment is to make the words and intent as clear as can be.
Sen. Harry Jacobson spoke regarding recitals, capstones in Music programs, which are not courses, and are not evaluated as courses. It is obvious that these are beneficial to the students. In some other programs, required capstones can be very contrived, and would not be appropriate for certain disciplines.
Sen. Reddy said that if we have a capstone requirement in the Plan, then it ought to be worth doing it. That is what his amendment is getting at
Sen. Milgram-Luterman suggested that it might be that some programs should, if they share this philosophy, while others might not.
Sen. Grady offered that in Physics, the capstone course is considered to have the purpose of integrating the material taught in prior courses. Self-reflection is more implicit. For physics, integration is the most important aspect.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman suggested removing the word "evaluated”, perhaps substituting "developed”.
Chair Carney asked if the amendment was talking about the evaluation of the capstone as it went through the development process or assessment of it. Sen. Reddy responded saying it is really for both types of evaluation.
***SUNY University Senator Bob Rogers spoke to the issue saying the amendment does make it clearer in a [ ] way, but he does have concern about student self-reflection and differences between majors.***
Sen. Jan McVicker offered her curiosity or puzzlement by the phrase in Action Item 6 "should be charged" (by the Deans???)… this implies that everybody does it and somebody enforces it. The Deans might signal to the departments in some way: "How are you doing on these action items" (possibly raised in a department's annual report???)
Sen. Wilson asked a point of information: are we going to vote on the entire plan? The Chair responded that her intention was to present the plan section by section, and vote on each section.
Sen. Jacobson spoke against the amendment. The idea is already implicit in the original language, and this language is confining. Sen. Reddy responded that these are the words that are there. Sen. Jacobson offered that it is the restatement of it, especially the self-reflection areas, that he didn't like.
With no further discussion on the amendment, the vote was taken. The nays carried in a voice vote.
Sen. Reddy then moved to delete Action Item 6 from the Fredonia Plan. Sen. Schwalbe seconded.
Sen. Jacobson indicated that he'd rather keep it.
Sen. Schwalbe said that he'd rather see a change in language to something like "encourage to develop" and added he'd rather have the Action Item amended by language similar to what he just said than to drop it, so he was speaking against the motion.
Sen. Reddy argued that the capstone experience has value if it is institutional. If not all departments are going to offer capstones, it should not be in the Plan (which by its nature is institutional.) Action Item 6 should not be there if the departments are going to pick and choose.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman suggested that possibly a language change adding "as appropriate" might work.
SUNY University Senator Rogers stated that people aren't against having it, but what is written is very narrow. If we could broaden the definition we could keep it. Sen. Reddy responded that the definition as it exists in the Plan is what a capstone experience is intended to be. Sen. Rogers countered that "self-reflection" might not be appropriate for all disciplines.
Sen. Simon asked how hard is it to ask a student in a capstone to write an essay that provides some self-reflection about their experiences, growth, etc. in the discipline. He hoped that the departments are doing some kind of assessment as to whether they are meeting the goals that they have set.
At that point Sen. McKinney moved to table further discussion of Action Item 6 until the rest of the Plan had been dealt with. Sen. Milgram-Luterman seconded. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The Chair asked if there was further discussion of Action Items 1 through 5.
Sen. Grady spoke about Action Item 3, asking again if the Center for Teaching and Learning was going to take a faculty line. Sen. Ruth Antosh supported Sen. Grady, saying that she was not sure what the creation of such a Center implies, with the budget being what it has been.
Sen. Reddy said that whether this was a faculty line or not was up to the Administration to determine. The real spirit of this is the kinds of things that really good people in this area can help us achieve in improving teaching, and they can be stunning. It is not a squandering of a line if we improve teaching because of this Center.
Sen. Simon suggested that he could go back to the Committee to determine the answer.
Sen. McKinney spoke to the issue saying whether it is a faculty line, an administration line, or a professional line, we should think of it like a line in the Grants office. If the Center takes off and has good results, the administration will go further with it.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman said she thought it would be a shame not to go ahead with the Center.
There being no further discussion, the Chair asked for a vote on Action Items 1 through 5, as presented. The ayes carried the motion on a voice vote. Action Item 6 is still on the table.
Sen. Reddy moved his motion no. 3 on the handout. Sen. McKinney seconded.
Sen. Simon wondered if this change doesn't make Action Item 7 the same as Action Item 8. Sen. Reddy said that he doesn't think it does.
Sen. McKinney wondered why this was adding that language only to the second bullet, when there are some things that people will do that will not involve students. Sen. Reddy responded that it is the emphasis that matters. Yes, we can do our own research with no concern to the students, but if we are trying to reward such research, it should show up in the learning of our students.
Sen. Grady argued that the preamble talks about how research activity affects the classroom in a whole variety of ways. The amendment may be over-emphasizing, and this language might be interpreted as research actually done with students. It is not necessary.
Sen. Tom Janik supported Sen. Grady's comment. This wording makes it very similar to Action Item 8.
Sen. Reddy suggested that Syracuse University, a tier 1 institution, says that their faculty's learning is to be assessed in terms of what it brings to their students. He is trying to bring a sense of that language into the initiatives.
SUNY University Senator Rogers said there seem to be people who don't like the term "special attention", perhaps "equal attention" might work better.
Sen. McKinney stated that she felt this discussion was why we have Action Item 8. Action Item 7 is more about individual faculty endeavors.
Sen. Amy Cuhel-Schuckers suggested this Goal could be helped if there were a "Goal Statement" as is the case in all the other goals. Is this an oversight? Would it help to have the goal statement stated clearly? Sen. Simon thanked Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers, wondering how this could have gotten done without a clear goal statement in the rewriting.
Sen. Wilson supported Sen. Rogers comment about changing "special" attention to "equal" attention. Sen. Reddy said that he had no problem with using the word "equal" instead of "special", and that was accepted as a friendly amendment.
Sen. Jamar Pickreign offered that he sees Action Item 7 as identifying the role played by scholarly and creative activity in creating content. That is what we do when we do research and creative work. Sen. Reddy expanded on this concept, saying that Action Item 8 is joint work with students and faculty, rather than work that shows up in the classroom.
Sen. McVicker restated the observation of Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers that this is the only goal area without a goal statement. Perhaps the portion of the preamble beginning with "Fredonia should reaffirm..." could be used as the goal statement.
Sen. Jacobson spoke in support of the amendment as a noble objective.
Sen. Simon spoke in support of the amendment now that the wording is "equal."
With no further discussion, the vote was taken. The Reddy amendment no. 3, with the change from "special attention' to "equal attention" passed by voice vote.
The Chair called for a vote on Goal 2, as amended. This passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Schwalbe rose to laud the Writing Committee for the change to expand the concept of diversity.
Sen. Wilson rose to share some questions. She first asked in Action Item 9 that there be acceptance that not everyone subscribes to the same "shared vision" as stated in the "Campus Climate" bullet. In Action Item 10, she felt that "ethnically diverse and international student leaders" was poor wording. Individual leaders cannot be diverse. Groups of leaders can be diverse.
Sen. Reddy moved his amendment no. 4. Sen. Jacobson seconded. Sen. Reddy said this places the various action items more logically.
Sen. McVicker said that she likes the order they are in now, no. 10 especially, since it brings students into the process. Students haven't had much of a chance to get involved with this process so far.
There being no further discussion on the Reddy amendment, the Chair called for the vote. A voice vote was too close to call. A show of hands resulted in:
12 Aye
13 Nay
2 Abstain
The motion was defeated.
Sen. Reddy then moved his amendment no. 5. Sen. Schwalbe seconded.
There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Further discussion on Goal 3:
Sen. Wilson asked what kind of relationship is intended in Action Item 13. Chair Carney said that her understanding was that this meant reaching out, possibly developing links with students who would then apply to become Fredonia students, etc. Sen. Wilson then asked about the "Coordination and/or Consolidation of Services" bullet, wouldn't that incur costs? Sen. Reddy noted that there will be movement of offices of various types once the University Commons opens, so there will be costs incurred even without possible coordination and consolidation. Sen. Wilson then asked about Action Item 14, where the statement reads "expanding the size of pools to ensure diverse representation..." does this mean expanding the pools who are brought to campus. Chair Carney responded saying that this means trying to make the initial candidate pools more diverse. Sen. Simon said that he thought it would be illegal to force this onto the people who are brought to campus.
There being no further discussion, a vote was called on adoption of Goal 3, as amended by Reddy amendment number 5. The motion passed by voice vote.
Sen. Grady asked why wireless technology is such a high priority in this plan. Sen. McKinney stated that there is a very severe shortage of ports for computers on campus, and having the ability to connect without a port gives us a huge advantage. Sen. Rogers indicated that he felt the was the most proactive Action Item in the entire plan.
With no further discussion, the vote was called for. Goal 4 passed as presented on a voice vote.
Sen. Reddy moved his amendment no. 6. Sen. Grady seconded.
With no further discussion, the amendment passed by voice vote.
Sen. Wilson expressed concern about Action Item 21 [which will be Action Item 22 in the amended plan – Faculty Secretary] She said she hoped that this item doesn't imply that all communication (for example our e-mails) MUST "boldly feature SUNY Fredonia's strengths." Chair Carney suggested that this was meant to cover official marketing type materials.
Sen. McVicker said she would like to raise the issue that the student newspaper (which she advises) could be viewed as marketing material, and the students who run it would certainly would not want to be forced to "boldly feature..." either.
At this point Sen. Simon offered a motion amending Action Item 21. During the discussion of the possible wording of this amendment, the Chair called for a motion to extend the meeting for 10 minutes. The requested motion was moved and seconded, and passed by unanimous voice vote. After some discussion among the Senators, and as a friendly amendment, the motion was agreed to state what is appended to these minutes as "ACTION ITEM 21 as amended." With no further discussion, the motion amending Action Item 21 passed by voice vote.
The Chair then asked for further discussion on the Fredonia Plan (with Action Item 6 still tabled.) Sen. Reddy moved his amendment no. 1. Sen. Feit seconded.
Sen. McVicker said that she would like to sees evaluation of the Fredonia Plan as being broader than the Planning & Budget Committee. The Deans, for example, might need to be more involved. She'd like to see this language amended by adding "the Planning & Budget Committee, in consultation with the Academic Deans and any other portions and administrators"...Sen. Simon suggested that one could probably seek input from an assessment Director, or department chairs with this language. Sen. Reddy responded utilize any persons, as the language of his amendment states the Committee "may create such subcommittees as it sees fit to assist” with the evaluation.
[Sen. Jacobson???] suggested that perhaps evaluation could be conducted by the Academic Affairs Committee.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman said that she sees a grassroots effort being better for this type of evaluation.
Sen. McVicker offered that the Plan is comprehensive across the campus, and not just related to Academic Affairs.
Sen. Simon posited that the timeline has plenty of Administration responsibility, and Planning & Budget would be a nice umbrella committee to oversee this.
Sen. Feit moved to table the discussion and charge the Task Force to develop some sort of method for evaluation. Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers seconded.
Sen. Grady said this is reasonable language. We are close to getting it done here. He was opposed to tabling.
Sen. Schwalbe also spoke against tabling the current motion.
With no further discussion forthcoming, the vote was taken and the motion to table was rejected in a voice vote.
With no further discussion on the Reddy amendment forthcoming, the vote was taken and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The Chair asked for a vote on the total Fredonia Plan, as amended at this meeting, and without final action on Action Item 6. There was no further discussion. The voice vote was affirmative with one abstention.
The Chair asked for a motion to extend the meeting another 10 minutes. It was moved and seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Vice President Horvath thanked all the people who have been working so hard on search committees. She said the first round of new hires has been announced. She will announce new hires in batches only after they have signed and returned their contracts, so don't worry if you felt that a candidate had been missed. Not all have returned their contracts at this point.
She also announced that there will be a web cast tomorrow on Seven Revolutions that will Change our World. We are not allowed to record this web cast, so she hopes as many as can participate will.
Next month, Gillian Kinney will be presenting NSSE-related information on the afternoon of April 6 and the morning of April 7. More details will be forthcoming.
Sen. Ted Steinberg asked that since at the last Senate meeting he had raised the issue of there being no second writing course in the CCC, and not all syllabi reflect the aspect of writing across the curriculum, is anything being done to address this issue. Sen. Reddy remarked that there was no systematic review of syllabi for the area of writing across the curriculum, since all departments are to be doing work with writing. VP Horvath responded that she knew of nothing, and invited Sen. Steinberg to join her at lunch so she could hear his ideas about this.
A revised motion "Proposal on Time-Shortened Courses" (attached to agenda) was brought off the table from the February meeting. Sen. Feit presented it. He informed the body that this proposal would NOT apply to courses DESIGNED to be taught in two or three week time periods. There are other exceptions noted in the motion.
Sen. McVicker spoke to the point that she would prefer this to be looked at by the Academic Affairs Committee for review.
Campus Registrar, Nan Bowser, asked why "Special Topics" and short seminar courses were not included in the exceptions. These are courses that usually differ every time they are taught. Sen. Feit said that he didn't know why. The group putting forth this motion did not discuss this. Mrs. Bowser continued, saying that the Registrar's Office would not welcome having to police this policy. These reviews should be in the hands of the Deans and the Departments, who understand their own disciplines more.
Sen. Wilson stated that new courses go up to the Deans from the Departments all the time, and get reviewed by Academic Affairs Committee. Mrs. Bowser responded saying not for review of the content and the method of instruction.
Sen. Antosh objected to the term "policing," as we are not trying to have a police state on campus. The content of a time-shortened course cannot be the same as it would be in most cases when taught over a full semester. Going through the normal approval processes makes good sense for these. This policy provides a set of guidelines. She also pointed out that our competition (specifically Geneseo) does NOT offer such courses.
Sen. Jacky Swansinger raised three issues: 1. Content is a department level check. 2. The exceptions need to be revisited a bit; some courses have gone through all the normal course approval processes. 3. Look around, many SUNY campuses are offering this type of course (New Paltz, Binghamton, and many others). The key is making these fit into our mission.
VP Horvath said that paying attention to the learning outcomes from these courses is good. Evidence of student learning when they have been taught is needed. Comparative data is not there.
At this point, the Chair asked for another motion to extend the meeting for 10 minutes. It was moved and seconded, and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Christine Givner offered that making sure courses accomplish the stated learning outcomes is necessary. The College of Education offers courses in a 2-week intensive setting for professionals in the field. These courses will go from 8 in the morning until 5 or later at night to make sure the number of minutes is met. Alternative service delivery can mesh with consistency of quality.
Chair Carney stepped down, handing the gavel to Vice Chair Barneva. She spoke to the point that shared governance is a responsibility, and the departments are part of shared governance. Will we be giving up more of our governance role if we allow more review from outside our departments? She then resumed her role as Chair
Sen. Wilson stated that some on the faculty view these as new courses that need to be approved with the same mechanisms as semester-long courses
Sen. Simon spoke to the point that Jacky Swansinger made: some courses have already done this process. If Deans and Vice Presidents get to review these, why not the faculty?
Sen. McKinney stated that if your department has said you can or cannot teach a course in time-shortened format viably, that should suffice. This takes the decision out of the departments. These decisions should be made in every department.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers called the question. The motion to call the question passed by voice vote.
The Chair asked for a voice vote, which was indeterminable. A show of hands was called for. The results: 13 Aye, 9 No, 1 Abstention. The motion passed.
Jennifer Burke reported on the survey conducted by the Committee. A copy of her report ("The Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee") is appended to these minutes.
Bob Rogers quickly informed the body of the call for proposals for the "Conversations in the Disciplines" program grants. A program can obtain up to $5,000.00 for such offerings. The Faculty Secretary informed the body that broadsides concerning the call for proposals had been sent out (at least to Departments). The application deadline is April 1, 2006.
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned. There was discussion as to whether Action Item 6 had been tabled until the April meeting. Sen. Reddy said that he felt it had been tabled until the rest of the business had been completed. Because we were essentially out of time, it was generally agreed that Action Item 6 would be dealt with at the April meeting. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney, Faculty Secretary