Sen. Reddy asked if Pres. Hefner had any comments about other mission adjustments. The Pres. replied that mission adjustments are supposed to be for programs that are significant on a campus that have very unusual cost structures. About 15 programs across the system qualify. There may be an aeronautical engineering program, and so forth. These programs account for less than 1% of all the dollars allocated, but if you have one of these types of programs, this money is very important. We get about a half a million for our Music offerings, and for us that is a big chunk of change
Sen. Julia Wilson asked would the funding for the science building be put off a year. Pres. Hefner responded that yes, he mentioned at the last meeting that would likely be happening. Division of Budget has given verbal assurances that the remaining dollars will be going into the budget (they have already put up the $22 M for planning, and no one is going to want to waste that expenditure.) The additional funding will go into the Administrative Budget. Pres. Hefner also said that he has never seen a building project that was in the Administrative Budget that didn't get built
Vice President Virginia Horvath reported
Dr. Joseph Straight raised an issue that was of concern to the Academic Affairs Committee. That Committee has recently received some requests for course deletions (elem. Arabic I and II, and elem. Japanese I and II) which made them wonder what were our goals as a University in terms of offering languages. Sen. Carmen Rivera, Chair of the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, responded that one reason the Department asked for these deletions was that they have no faculty resources for those courses (just because someone is a native speaker, doesn't mean that they are qualified to teach the language), and there are budget aspects to this as well. The Department is now looking at who we want to be as a language department. We can offer all kinds of languages at the 115/116 level, or we can do fewer languages with intermediate level offerings. Dr. Rivera indicated she originally wanted these offerings to be still on the books, but inactive, and was told that was not a possibility. Dean Paul Schwartz interjected at this point that Dr. Rivera was just being realistic
Sen. Jan McVicker then asked if deleting the courses wouldn't prevent being able to resurrect those course numbers. Sen. Nancy Bowser, our Registrar, indicated that we could delete them and later reactivate them. She also indicated that we could give such courses a frequency code of "D", meaning "offered on occasion". She told the body that course had been reactivated this past year which hadn't been taught in 15 years
Dr. Straight commented that he is glad that the Department is examining their courses and resources, but he knows with just a quick search of the web that other campuses our size are offering a broader range of courses in languages
Sen. Rivera informed the body that currently, there is a push to teach the "security" languages, but right now we are not staffed to take advantage of this funding
Sen. Rhea Simmons asked if the frequency code was "D" right now. Sen. Rivera could not remember. Sen. Bowser told the body that she thought we had just made those "D" for the next catalog. Dr. Straight said that in the current catalog, Arabic 115 and 116 were both listed as "B" frequencies. Sen. Rivera then added that Dr. Straight was correct, there are other campuses that advertise that they teach these, but the department at those campuses bases the course on the availability of the instructor and their resources. They don't even teach German or Italian relatively frequently
VP Horvath suggested letting the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures look at what they can offer, and explore improvements later
Sen. Wilson suggested that it would make more sense to list such courses as "D" frequency than to remove them. Dr. Straight responded by saying that when we delete a course, it becomes inactive. A "D" frequency would indicate that we do expect to offer such a course at some point. If not in the foreseeable future, we ought to delete them. Sen. Bowser then informed the body that many would be surprised at how many of those courses that are listed as "D" have not been taught in five years or more
VP Horvath then asked Sen. Rivera if she would want these courses to become "D" instead of deleting them. Sen. Rivera said that they could do that. Sen. Michael Grady then indicated that you do have to have some lead time to get a course back. Dr. Straight added that such is not really true, if there is a need for a reactivation, that can be fast-tracked. He thn stated that it looked to him as though the Department had made the correct decision, considering their intent for the future. He just wanted to find out if there was long-term planning involved
VP Horvath commented that it might be nice to have a discussion of such matters outside of the catalog process
Report of the Chair of the Fredonia University Senate
Chair Carney reported several odds and ends:
At this point, Sen. Theodore Steinberg rose to state that speaking as a Senator-at-Large (and not as a member of the English Department) that he felt there should be a representative on this Committee for someone from the English Department. English is a large department, and the new Dean will have to work with us. While this proposed Committee is a very good one, he would like to see someone from English added to it. Sen. Steinberg then moved the addition of a representative from English to the Search Committee for the position of Dean of Arts and Humanities. Sen. Dani McKinney seconded
Discussion:
Sen. Reddy commented that there ought to be some discussion as to why size matters
Sen. McVicker said as chair of the department, it is not simply a matter of size, but the diversity of things that this department does, and that deserves recognition. The proposed slate is good. But English has a diversity of programs... teacher ed. programs at the graduate and undergraduate level, all kinds of diverse courses, and so forth
Sen. Wilson asked if English will have an added representative, will any of the proposed slate be removed. Chair Carney responded no
Sen. Wilkes asked if the original intent was to balance the Committee. Would we have to add another Arts representative? Chair Carney indicated that would have to be discussed here
Sen. Marcus Vink asked if English is added, would someone else from the humanities be removed. Chair Carney responded no
Sen. McVicker informed the body that there was a Committee of 10 when we hired Dean Schwartz
Sen. Rivera asked what is the distribution of arts and humanities departments. [Uncaptured respondent] there are 3 arts, 5 humanities, plus health, recreation and wellness. The arts have the largest faculty, humanities have the largest departments. Dani McKinney commented what about the CCCs... there is a heavy humanities component in those. It just seems that you wouldn't be slighting the arts, but with the heavy use of humanities in the CCC, I don't think the Committee would be unbalanced
There being no further discussion, the vote was called on the motion to add a representative from English. The voice vote passed, with one negative and one abstention
Chair Carney asked if there was further discussion on the slate, as amended. There being no response, the vote on the original motion as amended was called. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote
Chair Carney asked Dr. Reneta Barneva to report on her attendance as our campus governance officer at the SUNY-wide Senate Plenary in October. Dr. Barneva noted that one of the most interesting pieces came from Chancellor Ryan's talk, in which he indicated that SUNY population will be coming from a decreasing base in New York. Dr. Ryan indicated that in 2040 it is projected that New York will be the ranked 46th in the nation in population. She attended two sessions where some issues related to governance structures and procedures were discussed. These sessions included such topics as budgets and administrative evaluations. There is also a group that works with planning for the System in cases of disaster. This group held a workshop in Saratoga Springs
There were no questions of Dr. Barneva
At this point, Sen. Reddy rose to bring up a point with regard to the vote on adding to the Search Committee. He asked if there was an expectation that the Executive Committee would find that representative, or do we need to bring that name to the February meeting for approval. Dean David Ewing indicated that review of applications will begin on Jan. 23, 2007. Chair Carney asked are we empowered to do that. Sen. Reddy said probably a vote empowering us would be a good idea. Chair Carney then asked the body to vote a clarification. An affirmative vote would empower the Senate Executive Committee to find the representative from the English Department. There was no further discussion. The vote passed by unanimous voice vote
Committee Reports
Academic Affairs Committee
ARTS ENSEMBLE CREDIT POLICY
Dr. Straight brought the Arts ensemble credit policy to the floor (attached to the agenda.) He indicated that at present these are 0 credit courses for majors, however the Music Department wishes to begin granting credit, and there has been a request from Theater and Dance to begin giving credit for dance productions. The Registrar brought this to the attention of the Academic Affairs Committee, asking do we want some limit, such as we do for physical education credits. The proposal is for a six-credit-hour limit.
Sen. Jason Mellen asked if this was going to be retroactive for a student who might currently be a junior. Dr. Straight indicated no, it would begin in fall 2007.
Sen. Joni Milgram-Luterman noted that in Music there are eight semesters of ensemble work. Dr. Straight responded that we expect the departments to say "these are the number of credits we are requiring", and we would work with them about the limits.
Sen. Steinberg asked would they not be taking six hours from their other credit requirements, or will these be added. Rumor is that they will add them on. Sen. Bowser noted that in practice, our music majors already take way in excess of 120 credit hours. Sen. Milgram-Luterman added that the idea is to give credit where credit is due. Sen. McKinney asked if students switch majors, they have fewer credits. Dr. Byrne asked if part-time students are going to be at some disadvantage because they will have to pay for an ensemble. Sen. Bowser responded that they can audit such courses.There being no further discussion the motion to approve the Arts
Ensemble Credit Policy was called. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
ACADEMIC FORGIVENESS POLICY
Dr. Straight presented the second draft of the Academic Forgiveness Policy [attached to the agenda]. He informed the body that there is currently a Readmit Petition that is like the Restart Option, and that the Senate had passed in a prior year language that was similar to some parts of this policy, but for some unknown reason the language never became policy once it had been approved. Dr. Straight then covered the new points, indicating that language had been tightened up from the last presentation. One addition is that students must now show an awareness of the course repeat option (added to the Freshman Forgiveness section.) There are some small changes at the end of the Bankruptcy portion: replacing all the grades by Y's and Z's don't reflect in the transcript, so we were not in compliance with Federal policies (sort of). The grades for the bankrupt semester will not be counted in the GPA, but C-minus grades or above will be consistent with the Freshman Forgiveness and the Restart options, in other words they will be the same as our Readmit Petition
[Missed a question from Sen. Thomas Taylor, and the response from Dr. Straight.]
Sen. Vink asked what is the rationale; why are we expanding this policy. How does Fredonia compare with other campuses? Do other campuses have similar policies? What does our degree mean if we are the only campus with such a policy? I have misgivings.
Dr. Straight responded that we are very liberal in terms of having this policy. Some other campuses have freshman forgiveness; others have a very stringent readmit policy. We are somewhat unique providing all of these options. The rationale: readmit and academic bankruptcy have been on our books for longer than I've been here. The current system has some unfairness in it. For a student who gets off to a poor start and never leaves campus, there is no option for them.
Sen. Vink then stated that if we are the only campus with such a broad policy, we have to look at what that will do to our reputation.
Sen. Bruce Tomlinson then said that this policy is only for people who change their major. Can a student who changes his/her major be able to show improvement before the accumulation of 40 credit hours?
Dr. Straight answered that some students would have a problem with the 40 credit hours. The Committee could look at mid-semester grades to get an idea if they have improved. If the 40 hours turns out not to be a good idea, we can amend the policy later on.
Sen. Reddy raised a point about language in the proposed policy, with respect to completion. In the freshman forgiveness portion it reads 40 credit hours, but in "a" it says the successful completion of 12 credit hours. And another issue: in terms of changing a major, how would that apply to a liberal arts major? Would either a change to or from a liberal arts major be considered a change of major for this policy?
[???] informed the body that she had switched halfway through her sophomore year from Biology to Business. She was taking general ecology and was not doing well in that course. She would have liked having such a policy in place, but she just retook that course this semester, and she is now staying an extra semester to finish a Biology minor. Retaking that course helped me to grow and mature as a student. If a student wanted to, they could retake a class, but if we don't make them retake it, what are we trying to say? I can understand if it is some kind or registration type problem (such as not being able to retake a music course because one is no longer a music major).
Dr. Straight offered that those in favor of this policy can think of many students who kept trying, repeating the same course and beating their heads against a wall.
Sen. McVicker stated that the English Department had talked about this policy, and was split down the middle on the Freshman Forgiveness option. Could we just simply extend academic bankruptcy to such students? Freshmen who select a major for which they clearly show no aptitude could be allowed to obtain academic bankruptcy. That would help students with the registration dilemma.
Dr. Straight replied that one problem with that suggestion was that you are not forcing a student to sit down and figure out which courses they could repeat, but it is an interesting proposal.
Sen. Arnavut stated that one thing he was afraid of was that this encourages students to change their majors. Dr. Straight agreed that changing a major should be a decision that is not made lightly. He continued that he would like to see evidence that some thought had gone into such a decision. Sometimes students give up too easily on a major.
Sen. Milgrim-Luterman said that in her mind she wasn't thinking of Freshman Forgiveness as the type of example that [Cara ??] gave. I would see this as being used by a student who was doing poorly in many classes in the major. It happens in Music all the time.
[???] Dr. Straight said that if somebody retook the class a few times, then perhaps what Dr. Tomlinson suggested about the 40 hours might work, if I took a course and retook it as a junior. I would have liked to be able to get some forgiveness. Dr. Straight interjected that if this is done as a junior, it could take a long time for a student to get out of here. [???] continued, in the beginning, I did very poorly for a few classes, not just one, especially compared to how I am doing now.
Sen. McKinney asked that the Committee think about the wording in the Freshman Forgiveness section. The wording she had a problem with was "although, the student," thinking that it would be more clear if it read "and the student will lose credit."
Sen. Mellen rose in opposition to the proposal, saying that since the last Senate meeting he had discussed this with other students, and there was a straw poll taken (?? at an SA meeting ??), and the straw poll was unanimous: based on the first draft, 38 students voted NO to the Freshman Forgiveness option. He then asked if anyone could venture a guess as to how many students change their major. Of the 5000 students here, how many will change their major? The average student will change 2.5 times. He would like to see Sen. McVicker's idea of including this in the Academic Bankruptcy option. He added that he was a Business major, and now is an English secondary education major. He indicated that he did poorly (in his opinion) as a freshman, but not D's or F's.
Sen. Wilson commented that she was uncomfortable with having a Freshman Forgiveness policy that would include the Liberal Arts majors as qualifying for forgiveness upon declaring their official major. I can see this being good for some scenarios: math secondary education, where a student takes University Calculus and bombs it, and then they decide to do another education major with a math concentration. They could have done that from day one and been swimming. With the requirement to have a 2.5 GPA to get into elementary education, they would have difficulty getting there.
Dr. Straight responded that if we went to what the English Dept. is proposing, that is even more liberal. Why would a student do anything but declare bankruptcy? You could use that to wipe out a C+ now that you are getting A's as an English major.
Dr. Straight continued that he doesn't envision many applications making it to the committee. He would estimate ten or so.
Sen. Reddy moved that as it was now 5:30 we need a motion to extend the meeting, and he would ask to have the meeting extended for 15 minutes. Sen. Arnavut seconded. There being no discussion, the vote was called, and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote
Dr. Byrne asked if the Senate was supposed to vote on this policy today. Dr. Straight replied that was the intent
Sen. Grady then raised the issue that the way this is written, Liberal Arts students could use it to knock off a D or an F. You could have thousands of these coming to the committee. It might be abused that way. Dr. Straight responded wondering that they'd be in a situation where they wouldn't want to repeat those courses. Maybe we shouldn't include the Liberal Arts as being a major under this policy. [Sen. Grady ??] continued, for Bankruptcy, one has to be in good academic standing. Having a semester where you got all F's, that would be very hard to achieve good academic standing. You should exclude the semester you are trying to bankrupt... the bankrupt semester shouldn't be included.
Sen. Chris Taverna commented that Academic Bankruptcy is all or nothing, while Freshman Forgiveness allows one to get rid of D's and F's. It seems kind of harsh to have to give up 15 credits of A's along with 6 credits of F's.
Sen. McVicker then stated that she changed her major out of pre-med because she had the opportunity to do this under such a policy. She had an illness that interfered with her studies. With a policy such as this, it is possible to have a terrible first semester and recover.
Sen. Schwalbe offered the concept of fairness. Currently there exist options for students who leave the University that do not exist for students who do not leave the University.
Dr. Byrne added that Freshmen do have the option of dropping courses very late in the first semester. I don't think Freshmen recognize how poorly they are doing, and perhaps this is an advising issue.
Dr. Vivian Garcia rose to speak against the elimination of Liberal Arts students. We work with them heavily on course repeats (in the Advising Center), and to exclude them from the policy will be counter-productive, and I will work up an equal protection brief if you want me to!
Sen. Bowser added that we have a Freshman restart option for Freshmen who are dismissed. We support the very weakest students, but have nothing for marginal or persistent students.
[???] what are the satisfactory academic standards in the academic bankruptcy. I don't think a 2.0 does that. I think an A or B student should be.
[???] We still have students taking majors because they don't want to deal with the Liberal Arts seminar.
Sen. Mellen said that he believes Dr. Herman has overridden for students. The Freshman Forgiveness could be done in a different way. Originally this was brought up because Music students couldn't deal with theory, and now it is a big umbrella. Dr. Straight responded that in the original discussions, Music never came up. Sen. Mellen corrected himself, saying that was raised in his discussion about this with Dr. Herman.
Sen. Bowser asked when drafting this, were you thinking that Freshman Forgiveness would be given at the same level as Academic Bankruptcy? It is extraordinarily difficult to obtain academic bankruptcy. In some years as few as three students are granted bankruptcy. It doesn't state anywhere in here "under extraordinary" circumstances. Dr. Straight answered that yes, we would be using the same discerning eye for this policy.
Sen. McKinney asked where did the 40 hours come from for the Freshman Forgiveness. 16 and 16, that is 32. Most students aren't in the new major much before 45 credit hours are completed. If we are going to do this, you haven't given them that much time to prove themselves. Dr. Straight answered the Committee was hoping they would do it at the end of the fall semester of their sophomore year at the latest. Sen. McKinney continued that students can't complete a year in their new major if they hang on for a year. How can they show they've improved their academic performance if they haven't completed the first semester? Dr. Straight suggested perhaps that mid-semester grades and letters of support from their faculty might be used. Perhaps 40 isn't right. We might need to have enough experience with this to determine that.
Sen. Loughlin moved to table the motion. Sen. Ann Deakin seconded. There was no discussion. The motion to table passed by unanimous voice vote.
ADVISING MANIFESTO
Dr. Straight then presented the draft Advising Manifesto [attached to the agenda.] He said this was developed because students had expressed concern with the quality of advising. We want to hear from both sides. Today this is for discussion. We will expect to vote on this at the February meeting.
Sen. Wilson said that it seemed fine to her, with the exception of one issue. Specifying contacting and additional office hours seems extreme.
Sen. Reddy moved that the meeting be extended for another five minutes. Sen. Loughlin seconded. The motion had no discussion, and was passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. McVicker asked for clarification. She read that part (concerning contact and office hours) as being during the week of advising. Sen. Wilson responded that she still wouldn't want additional office hours. She makes appointments with her advisees. Dr. Straight indicated we need to clarify the "or make themselves available" part.
Sen. Loughlin said this is a nice document, and should be taken seriously. However, there is one concern. In the second paragraph there was something to do with advising being one of the considerations in the reappointment/tenure process. There is nothing in the Board of Trustees policies that specifically says advising. Dr. Straight responded that the Committee didn't put that in lightly. He's always interpreted that advising is part of our teaching and service to students. Some departments may need that kind of a stick. Sen. Loughlin said that he feels that language needs rethinking.
Sen. Rivera suggested use of a checklist for the 120 hours as a reminder for the student and the advisor.
Sen. Cheryl Drout raised the issue that on pp. 2 and 3 there are references that we are responsible for our majors, but we should also provide good information for students interested in a minor. Dr. Straight indicated that could be as good as a checklist, or have some discussion with the minor department. We've toyed with the idea of having multiple advisors, or an unofficial advisor for the second major or minor.
Sen. Ann Carden stated that she had a concern about advising for a second major or a minor, as well. She would be more comfortable if there were some sort of clarification in the language.
Sen. Milgram-Luterman said that she couldn't be responsible for advising one of her student's who are in a minor in another department. She always sends them to talk to someone in that department.
Sen. Reddy commented about the p. 4 [bullet 1?] responsibilities of the departments: in some departments much of this information is provided by and/or maintained by the department secretary. And in the next bullet, there is no mention of the CCC program if students have questions, and perhaps some reference to the CCC Director would be appropriate, as well.
Sen. Meyers asked if this will make it into the new catalog. Dr. Straight said that the deadline for the catalog has passed, but someone with more power than he could make it go in. We really haven't thought about where this would be or how it would be promulgated to the campus.
Sen. McKinney added we have to make sure they understand it is their responsibility as well.
Sen. Carden moved an extension of the meeting for five more minutes. Sen. Taylor seconded. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Simmons asked if Dr. Reddy had indicated that the maintenance of advising folders be a department responsibility? Sen. Reddy responded yes.
Dr. Straight stated that as he understood Sen. Reddy's comment, sometimes a department secretary updates checklists.
Sen. Mellen asked that under student's responsibilities and faculty responsibilities, do they correlate? If we change one, we should change the other?
Sen. Chuck Stoddart noted that the Foundations of Excellence committees will be doing some work in the area of advising.
Report of the SUNY-wide Faculty Senator
Sen. Drout presented her report (attached to the minutes.) She provided copies of the standards for each of the three SUNY-wide Senate awards (University Faculty Senate Fellow; Chugh Award for Outstanding Service to Faculty Governance; and Senator Emeritus Award). She informed the body that there is now a call out for nominees for all three of these awards. Total years of service can be combined SUNY-wide and local campus. If anyone needs it, she has a typical profile for the Chugh Award. Nominations will be put forward at the Winter plenary, so please forward nominations to her by the end of classes this semester. If you need clarification, or further information, please contact Sen. Drout.
Chair Carney thanked the Senate Executive Committee for their assistance during her absence after the death of her sister, and thanked everyone for the flowers that had been delivered to the funeral in Oregon.
Sen. Reddy moved to adjourn. Sen. Drout seconded. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:58 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney, Faculty Secretary
Attendance Sheet
Memorandum of Understanding
Senior Emeritius Award
University Faculty Senate Fellow
Chugh Award