The meeting was called to order by Chair Mary Carney at 4:04PM in Fenton 105.
Chair Mary Carney asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Sen. Richard Reddy moved, and Sen. Ray Rushboldt seconded. No discussion ensued. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Carney then asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of Sept. 11, 2006. Sen. Reddy moved, and Sen. Kerrie Wilkes seconded. No discussion ensued. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
President Dennis Hefner informed the body:
· The campus will have a unique opportunity to meet and discuss issues with Risa Palm, SUNY’s new Provost, this coming Wednesday, Oct. 4. An open reception is scheduled for 10:30-11:00AM in the Williams Center. Please come if you are not in class, and bring as many colleagues as you can!
· The SUNY Central Office asked each of the campuses to provide a needs analysis in preparation for the next budget request. There was a very short timeline for this, and SUNY Fredonia has submitted its needs. Pres. Hefner and VP Bennett will meet with the Planning and Budget Committee tomorrow to go over what was submitted. We realize that this is after the fact, but such was the timing of the request that the campus had only about six days to submit its response.
· Chancellor Ryan and the presidents of the State operated campuses had a conference call this past week. The Chancellor indicated that his top priority for the upcoming budget is to gain a rational tuition policy for SUNY. Two other needs are high on his list: to cover all inflationary costs (including utilities and increases in salaries); and, “special requests.” He asked each of the campuses to submit special request ideas, which will probably be floated as trial balloons in discussions with legislators, and anything that gets “Oooohs and Aaaaahs” will probably find its way into the budget request.
· The campus still awaits the final response from the Central Office regarding the Memorandum of Understanding that goes along with our Mission Review II (locally dubbed MOU II.) The Senate will be given it once it is out.
· We will be adding one additional faculty position in addition to those discussed at the last Senate meeting. Based on a review of past years’ applications, where we looked for areas where we are turning away good students, we have added a line in an area that was deemed a top priority: Communications (with a specialization in Public Relations.)
· The Freshman Honor Society, Alpha Lambda Delta, got off to a great start at its first event, as was the presentation “Tapaholics.”
· The campus got a follow-up regarding the Social Studies test that had been reported at the last Senate meeting. Two of the students who failed this had actually completed our Social Studies program. While we prefer that none of our students fail, this number is more tenable than what was reported. Nine students who did NOT complete our Social Studies program also failed. Apparently the State now has a “Social Studies Extender” credential for elementary education. These nine were graduates of our Elementary Education program who had not been part of the Social Studies program and took the test in hopes of getting the “Extender” credential.
There were no questions.
Vice President Virginia Horvath handed out a written version of her report, appended to the file of these minutes as “Remarks for University Senate-20061002” (appended to the minutes.) She indicated that there was one position that was being searched that was not on the list provided, that of the interim coordinator of the Native American Consortium. She also encouraged all faculty and staff to fill out the Foundations of Excellence survey when it comes out. This is a total campus effort, and everyone’s ideas and opinions are important.
The Vice President then asked Associate Vice President for Information Technology Karen Klose to speak about reorganization in that area. VP Klose used a handout (“The ITS Executive Board determines…” included as the last page in “Remarks for University Senate-20061002” appended to the minutes), which is appended to these minutes, to describe a new committee structure. While this looks like a very large group, IT is finding that it is working rather well. The committees provide feedback to the major committees of ITAB, the Banner Steering Committee, and the ITS Executive Board. These committees are made up of people from all the divisions, and thereby increase communication and collaboration throughout the campus. If anyone on campus has an issue dealing with technology on campus, please contact the chair of the appropriate committee or VP Klose. There were no questions of VP Klose at this point.
Questions for VP Horvath:
Sen. Jan McVicker asked that the second position for English in the listing handed out be corrected. The position is for English Education, not 19th Century British Literature. VP Horvath indicated that change will be made, and asked others who may find problems in the list to please contact her.
Sen. Julia Wilson asked about the position that was missing from the list. VP Horvath responded that it was for the interim coordinator for the Native American Consortium. Sen. Wilson then asked about the funding of the Foundations of Excellence effort. VP Horvath said the campus pays a fee for the services of the program, but the funds are coming from the Administration Division, not Academic Affairs. This is seen as one of our investments in the Fredonia Plan, where there is language concerning first year students. She repeated that NO Academic Affairs funds are being used, just “lots of sweat.
Chair Mary Carney reported
· We have added a Student Affairs representative to the Search Committee for the Assoc. VP for Graduate Studies and Research. Dan Tramuta has agreed to serve on that Committee. Also, thanks to many folks who offered names of graduate students. After contacting many students, we finally have one who can serve: Phillip Razem, a graduate assistant in English.
· At the last meeting of the Senate, we approved two by-law changes, one of which will have to be voted on by the entire faculty. Because the Senate Executive Committee sees other areas where revisions are needed, we will bring more proposed changes to the Senate, and hold off on the ratification vote until all changes have been dealt with in the Senate. Two areas where we see need for changes are to have the procedures used by the departments in appointing/electing their representation to the Senate written and provided to the Senate Executive Committee, and we need to get the release-time policy for the Chairs of the Standing Committees into the By-Laws. She asked all representatives of the departments to inform their chairs to please send the department procedures for Senate representation to Mary Carney, for informational purposes.
· At the last meeting of the Senate Executive Committee, we began thinking about pulling out the policies from the minutes and posting them in a separate section on the Senate web site. We need to update the Committee membership on the web pages, as well. What suggestions would the members of the body have for the web site? Perhaps having a link to the SUNY-wide Faculty Senate might be of use?
Sen. Neil Feit suggested having some kind of clickable text to find the results of votes, which could serve as a quick snapshot of motions instead of having to go through all the minutes.
Sen. Michael Grady suggested having any kind of annual report provided, to highlight Senate and Standing Committee activity during a year.
Sen. Ziya Arnavut suggested having a search capability for just the Senate area. Right now searches work only for the total Fredonia web site.
Sen. Amy Cuhel-Schuckers would like to see the handouts that are provided at Senate meetings to be readily available on the web site.
The Faculty Secretary pointed out that handouts that are not attached to the agenda are routinely scanned and posted as addenda to the minutes. Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers said that is good, and offered that
having such listed separately, possibly with a topical approach, might be an added benefit.
Sen. McVicker suggested reports of various kinds, and having live links to SUNY Central pages, perhaps.
Chair Carney asked anyone with by-laws-related issues to please contact her.
Joe Straight, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, was not yet in the Senate meeting, so Chair Carney asked for unanimous consent to move the Academic Affairs report to the end of the Standing Committee Reports
Reneta Barneva, Chair of the Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee, reported that the Committee had met on Sept. 22, and had considered issues raised in last year’s survey and focus meeting. Pres. Hefner attended the meeting on the 22nd. Minutes will be posted on the Committee’s web site (on the Senate portion). She then demonstrated the web site.
There were no questions.
Committee Chair Kathleen Gradel reported that the next meeting of the Committee will be tomorrow with Pres. Hefner and VP Bennett, where the topics will be budget and the needs assessment recently submitted. We are still in the midst of creating a new subcommittee to interface with the Fredonia Plan. We have a slate of possible subcommittee members, but have not approached everyone at this point in time. The subcommittee will consist of 7 or 8 members, representing all the units, and will have some membership from Planning and Budget to make liaison easier. This subcommittee will have significant responsibility to help the campus as it progresses in the evolution of the Fredonia Plan. As soon as all proposed members have been contacted and have agreed to serve, the names will be provided to the Senate.
There were no questions.
Cheryl Drout, Fredonia’s representative on the SUNY-wide University Senate, supplied a written report. (This was attached to the agenda.) She wished to clarify that Carl Wiezalis will be a NON-VOTING member of the SUNY Board of Trustees, but that status at least will allow him access to the Executive Sessions of the Board.
There were no questions.
Chair Carney recognized Sen. Ziya Arnavut, who as a member of the SUNY-wide Operations Committee reported on efforts to increase SUNY Libraries funding. Last year the Operations Committee shepherded through the SUNY Senate a resolution asking for $8 million in one-time funding for all the SUNY libraries to help them with their materials budgets, which have been eroded by inflation and the increase in costs associated with print serials, technology and databases. He indicated that the $8 million didn’t make it into the budget, but the Committee will keep trying. Then he raised the issue of inequality among the campuses in terms of electronic resources. The University Centers have a wide array of databases, while the Comprehensive Colleges have much less available to them. Last year the Operations Committee met with Carey Hatch, Director of the SUNY Office of Library and Information Services, and argued that there should be no differentiation between campuses. Mr. Hatch now serves on the Committee in a liaison capacity. All electronic services should be available to all SUNY students, faculty and staff. Recently Sen. Arnavut posted a draft proposal that Carey Hatch and the SUNY Library Directors have been working on, calling for between $20 and $80 million to accomplish this. The budget that will ultimately be called for will be a realistic one, and hopefully for the long term. The Operations Committee is preparing a new resolution for the October plenary, and we will continue to work for improved library funding and services for all of SUNY.
Chair Carney asked Sen. Arnavut to bring back the new resolution, and he said he would certainly try to.
As the meeting has progressed more rapidly than anyone could have anticipated, and Joe Straight was still in class, Chair Carney asked if there were any members of the Academic Affairs Committee present to begin discussion of items in their report. Sen. Ted Schwalbe indicated that he was present, and is a member of the Academic Affairs Committee.
Academic Affairs Committee: discussion “Academic Forgiveness Policy”
Chair Carney referred the body to the draft “Academic Forgiveness Policy” included in the agenda. She informed the Senate that this was for discussion only at this meeting. She asked Sen. Schwalbe to speak about it.
Sen. Schwalbe indicated that the Academic Affairs Committee had been discussing the situation on campus with regard to varying policy with regard to students who have bad grades, and how they might deal with such situations. It seems to the Committee that there are different treatments for students who are forced to leave school, as opposed to new students who might have begun in a major that was not perhaps the best choice, or students who have real difficulty in their first year, but who get it together in later years, but who never stop attending. The Committee has not fully discussed the issues surrounding these proposed policies, and would like to have input from this body related to these issues. As you can read, we are suggesting three options.
Sen. Wilson spoke regarding the “restart option.” Her first question was if the grades are removed from the GPA, will the courses still be reflected on the transcript? Sen. Schwalbe said it certainly does for options 1 and 3, but possibly not for option 2.
Registrar Nan Bowser pointed out that there are currently “Y” and “Z” grades which reflect that a student had taken a course and passed or failed but those credits are not included in their GPA. These are used mostly for those students who take advantage of our Academic Bankruptcy policy. She doesn’t think that Joe was intending to change the use of the Y or Z with this new policy. Other proposals might use the Banner Exclude function. It is a good question, and one which needs clarification.
The Registrar continued by asking has anyone considered an upper limit regarding the GPA? I can see students wanting to do this if they get a 3.2 and they then work to a 3.5. Students might use this to achieve Latin Honors, perhaps even after a semester off. Ted Schwalbe responded that he wasn’t sure; the Committee hadn’t discussed such scenarios.
Sen. Grady commented that perhaps we could use this for every student who gets a D or an F? He could see it used by freshmen who come into engineering, and discover that it is much harder than what they thought it would be.
Sen. Charles Telly spoke to the issue of why we are considering this. What is the philosophy behind this? We have to keep such policies in a meaningful vein. What is the vision or intent?
Registrar Bowser commented that she didn’t think there was any intent that this would be automatic. She feels we need to have some clear and consistent guidelines. Perhaps this would be useful for students in a discipline where course repeats are not afforded?
Sen. McVicker expressed a concern with the Freshmen Forgiveness option; in the last line, do they lose credit for CCC courses taken and have to repeat the credit all-together? If the intent is to allow those grades to be excluded from the GPA, these aren’t in the CCC or a minor? Ted Schwalbe responded that if a student loses credit, they lose it for everything. They’d have to take something else to satisfy a CCC requirement if they were forgiven a D or an F in that requirement.
Sen. Jason Mellen informed the body that at a recent SA meeting where this proposed policy was discussed, at first the students liked the idea, and then the feeling turned because the students started asking what kind of impact such a policy would have on students who do well.
Sen. Grady commented that it needs to be clear whether or not a student may pick and choose the courses they wish to apply this to? Or whether all grades in the first two semesters might be affected? A change of major might be a reasonable reason to use this. He could see engineering majors or music majors needing to have such a policy available.
Sen. Marcus Vink rose to say that whatever options are established, there should be some kind of record on the transcript that indicates that courses had been taken and are no longer included in the student’s GPA.
Sen. Telly offered that he didn’t see why we should erase someone’s problem grades. If they chose a wrong major, they can change and show improvement in a new major. This is a part of the “growing up” process, a part of life.
Sen. McVicker asked if the restart option was for both reinstated and readmitted students. Would all of these be on the table?
Sen. Chris Taverna offered his view that the forgiveness option would allow someone who switched majors, for example from a major they couldn’t handle and had a 2.0 to a major they enjoyed and worked for a 4.0 GPA… if all were included, their overall GPA might be below a 3.0, which would cause them to be hurt when applying to graduate schools. He felt this policy had merit.
Sen. Richard Reddy offered an editorial comment: The introductory paragraphs present a process, while the remaining paragraphs (the “options”) are policy statements. This needs to be revised for consistency.
Joe straight arrived at this point, and came forward to handle further discussion points.
The Registrar commented that it is important to remember that there already is a policy on campus for students who are reinstated/readmitted. These students have an option that is not available to continuing students.
Sen. Wilson said that seems like a good rationale. Whatever becomes policy though must be carefully thought through, and she would prefer it to be as conservative as possible. This should be a long process, with some kind of penalty built in (perhaps monetarily?)
Sen. Arnavut asked about the success rate of students who have used the Academic Bankruptcy policy. Does anyone have any statistics? None were brought forward, but the Faculty Secretary offered that one of his children had taken Academic Bankruptcy, after a beginning that was less than stellar, and when she returned, she was a 4.0 student in a different major.
Dr. Straight noted that several years ago, this body passed a readmit petition for students (which is included in this policy as the “restart option”), for students in good standing with a GPA between 2.0 and 2.5. For some reason, this never made it into the catalog. This is where this new draft comes from. “Freshmen Forgiveness” is the new policy in this draft. Readmits can apply for Academic Bankruptcy, which would not be allowed under this draft. Procedures would be tightened up.
Sen. Reddy then commented regarding 1) the Freshmen Forgiveness option that he could see perhaps some benefit for transfers, students getting into the wrong major, and possibly [illegible], and 2) Honors, should students who exercise these options be eligible for honors?
Sen. Feit asked what our peer institutions do for such policies. Dr. Straight responded that mostly the privates tend to have such policies. What we have on the books right now is more on the liberal side when it comes to our peers within SUNY.
Sen. Mellen asked if we were expecting to vote on this today. Chair Carney indicated, no, this is here for discussion only today.
Sen. Grady asked if the Committee had any recommendations regarding GPA in mind when creating the Freshmen Forgiveness option. Dr. Straight responded that no, it was felt that these kinds of details and guidelines would be worked out by the Academic Forgiveness Committee. He thought it less likely that a higher GPA would be part of these guidelines.
Sen. Wilson asked for a scenario or two. She stated that she was uncomfortable with this proposal as it was presented. Dr. Straight indicated that perhaps a student who entered in a major more because his/her parents wanted her/him to be in that particular major and the student wasn’t really committed to it. In such cases to repeat a course would likely not improve the student’s performance.
Sen. Telly commented “What is wrong with that?” Dr. Straight reiterated that the Committee is trying to make policies fairer. Transfer students start with a clean slate at Fredonia, while freshmen who enter in a wrong major, can’t at that point.
Registrar Bowser commented that there is a need for more guidelines for the student. Will there be an upper level cap? How will change of major be treated beyond the first semester or the first year?
Sen. Telly said transfers still have a record prior to attending Fredonia, which will follow them. These situations are part of life, aren’t they?
Registrar Bowser added that we want to do something similar to our Academic Bankruptcy policy, and have an indicator on the transcript that a class was taken with an indication of performance and that it is no longer included in the GPA calculation.
Sen. Arnavut suggested making all classes pass/fail in the first year.
Sen. Telly objected to that, saying that then there would be no standards for comparison.
Sen. Wilson commented that we already have a later drop deadline for freshmen in the first semester, and faculty do try to get it across to freshmen who are doing poorly that perhaps it would be best to drop the course. Dr. Straight raised the issue that dropping courses isn’t always feasible for students having financial aid.
Sen. Telly argued that students have 12 years of public school, and good students in public school tend to do well in college, and poor students in public school tend to not do well. Using pass/fail in the first year would mean that these students don’t have to grow.
Sen. McVicker asked Dr. Straight to please circulate the revised version at least a week before the next Senate meeting (or whatever Senate meeting during which it will be revisited), because Senators are going to have to consult with their constituencies
VP David Herman commented that not only grad school admittance depends on GPA. Many doors are closed based on GPA, such as participation in certain extra-curricular activities. He agreed that not every grad school studies every transcript closely, and he also agreed that these policies ought not to be “easy to do.”
Sen. Reddy commented on the rationale: we need more thought given to the Liberal Arts students, who essentially are exploring and very well might take a class they do poorly in as part of their exploration. And what does “righting his or her academic ship” really mean?
Sen. Taverna suggested that for the Freshmen Forgiveness that we need to see more criteria.
Chair Carney then said that she saw the body’s comments as being in three general areas: 1) need for more specificity in the guidelines, 2) we need to study the issues around GPA, and 3) faculty want quality to be maintained in these experiences/policies.
In presenting the proposal for a new degree program, B.S. in Computer Information Systems (attached to the agenda of this meeting), Dr. Straight informed the body that CIS was a track in Computing Science for a long time. Then when tracks were no longer included in the SUNY Program Book the track was not listed. Business Administration wants to phase out their Management Information Systems track, and several of these courses have been taught by Computer Science faculty since Business Administration has not been able to attract faculty who have the necessary skills.
Sen. Bowser said that looking over the proposed courses, she noticed that Math 108, and later possibly Math 120 were listed. If a student comes to Fredonia and takes Math 120 or Math 122, would they still have to go back and take Math 108? Dr. Straight indicated that such a case could probably be handled under advising. Math 108 has been a traditional start for Business students.
Sen. Reddy commented that he saw CSIT 207, which is listed a Web Programming II. There is no Web Programming I in the listing. Dr. Straight responded that so many students come in with web programming skills that would be in the Web Programming I course (which is CSIT 107) that it was felt that 107 didn’t need to be part of the degree program.
Sen. McVicker asked if there were enough faculty in Computer Science to handle this degree program. Several members of the body indicated that yes, there were, since Computer Science had two new hires last year, and Business has had difficulty attracting new faculty. She continued wondering if it wasn’t excessive to have more than half of one’s credits in their major program? Dr. Straight responded that 64 credits may be a bit less than the current program expects. He added that this began as an interdisciplinary program with many credits, as well.
Registrar Bowser asked if this was going to be sent to New York State Ed as a change. Dr. Straight indicated that most programs that are changes and not a new degree program do not get sent. The Registrar said that significant changes ought to be. Dr. Straight responded that an added track in Applied Math [secretary is not sure it was Math, notes are illegible] was not sent in.
There being no further discussion, the vote was called for. It was pointed out that an affirmative vote would mean approval of the deletion of the Management Information Systems track in Business Administration, as well as adding the Computer Information Systems B.S. in Computer Science.
One further question from Sen. Bowser: Will the students currently in the MIS program be able to complete their degrees? The answer was yes.
The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Sens. Reddy/Rushboldt moved/seconded that the meeting be adjourned. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney
Faculty Secretar
Remarks for University Senate