The meeting was called to order by Chair Mary Carney at 4:04 PM in Fenton 105.
Chair Carney asked for a motion approving the agenda. Senators Richard Reddy and Chuck Stoddard moved and seconded. There being no discussion, the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Carney then asked for a motion approving the minutes of the meeting of March 5, 2007. Sens. Reddy and Ray Rushboldt moved and seconded. There being no discussion, the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Carney asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the special meeting of March 26, 2007. Sens. Reddy and Dani McKinney moved and seconded. There being no discussion, the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Elections:
There were no nominations from the floor for the positions of Vice-Chair and Faculty Secretary. The nominees from the slate presented by the Senate Executive Committee for those positions (Dr. Anna Maria Klein, Vice-Chair, and Vincent Courtney, Faculty Secretary) were elected by unanimous voice votes.
Sen. Richard Reddy was nominated in the slate presented by the Sen. Executive Committee, and Dr. Khalid Siddiqui was nominated from the floor by Sen. Michael Szocki, and seconded by Sen. Wilkes, for Governance Officer. Voting by secret ballot ensued. Tellers for counting the vote were Sen. Reneta Barneva and Sen. Ziya Arnavut. Dr. Reddy won re-election to the post.
Task Force on Personnel Policies
Chair Carney informed the body that the Executive Committee is putting together a Task Force on Personnel Policies. She invited Senators or their constituents to let her know by e-mail ( Mary.Carney@fredonia.edu ) if they are interested in being considered for the Task Force or its subcommittees. There can be no guarantee that one will be selected for service, but having a broad pool of willing people will help the process of staffing this Task Force.
Sen. Vanwesenbeeck asked if there were any restrictions on junior faculty from serving. Chair Carney said that we have not determined that at this point, so if you are interested, please do send in your name.
Sen. Amy Cuhel-Schuckers rose to remind the body that the professional staff goes across the entire spectrum of the campus. One representative from the professional staff may not be enough. Chair Carney indicated that the Executive Committee has discussed the needs of the professional staff in that respect, and we will be sure to be aware of that point.
Chair Carney then projected five possible models for the Task Force and its subcommittees (attached to these minutes.) Comments on these models will be appreciated. Send comments to Mary.Carney@fredonia.edu .
Questions
Sen. Julia Wilson asked where is this coming from. Chair Carney answered that this reflects the campus's response to the Memorandum of Understanding for Mission Review II, where one of the issues was external review for personnel decisions. We said we'd look at that idea more closely during the coming year, and there has been discussion on campus of the possibility of more universal policies across the board. We have to maintain transparency in our discussions, but we also want to maintain our departmental autonomy. Sen. Wilson then asked if we have committed to any particular outcome. Chair Carney responded no, and we can take all the time we need to look at it.
Sen. Arnavut commented that at the SUNY-wide University Senate, there have been pushes from the Provosts office about external review.
Dr. Byrne asked if there was any sense among the group that it would make sense to grandfather older faculty who are moving up the tenure process, so that any changes made will not affect them. Chair Carney answered that we haven't talked about that, and we are sure such ideas will come up in the Task Force. We are just looking at how the Task Force might best be structured.
Sen. Jan McVicker made the observation that we have to make sure that interdisciplinary interests of the faculty are taken into account. We need to be upfront and open about how that would affect us.
Chair Carney said that we'd like to get the Task Force structured over the summer, so that we can begin work next fall. Please let her know if you wish to volunteer as a potential member. Please send your name as soon as you get to your office!
Standing Committee Reports
Planning & Budget
Dr. Kathleen Gradel, Chair of the Planning and Budget Committee, indicated that her committee has completed its review of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan, and moves its adoption. Dr. Roger Byrne then gave a brief outline of the plan (which was discussed at the Mar. 5, 2007, meeting.) The appendices are NOT part of the plan. They already exist in several other documents or places on campus, and are included for their information value.
Discussion:
Sen. Wilkes asked about information literacy. Does that come under the CCC portion, or is it a separate element? Middle States does have standards for information literacy, and that is handled in the Library and across the curriculum. How do we look at whether the faculty have established such learning goals? It is not a specific discipline. Sen. Reddy responded that the CCC does assess this area, but the problem is that it is embedded throughout the curriculum. So it would fall under the CCC category with respect to this document. Dr. Byrne added that for the Middle States report, we would put that in the section about technology. Sen. Reddy then said that he would like to point out that there supposedly is a lot of information literacy instruction happening in the departments, as well, and critical thinking is another category that is similar.
Sen. Ted Schwalbe referred to the second page, item no. 2. What about the departments that offer multiple majors, where we don't assign individual faculty to an individual major. In the past we've been asked to do five different assessment plans. Dr. Byrne responded when you go through your program review, are each of the majors looked at separately or together. Sen. Schwalbe answered together. Dr. Byrne continued we would ask you to prepare learning outcomes for each major. Sen. Schwalbe asked each year? Dr. Byrne answered if there is a great degree of commonality, such as critical thinking, perhaps you could assess each major using the same instrument. We are not asking for a unique set of learning assessment objectives. Sen. Schwalbe added that his department may pick and choose from the majors offered from year to year, but we haven't done all of those majors in any one year. Dr. Byrne then suggested having a discussion and then we will see what the Dean thinks. My feeling is that if you have a major, you should have a learning goal for that major that can be assessed.
Sen. McVicker rose to ask a question about the CCC assessment. You may recall an incident in the fall when we were trying to assess the humanities, when we were being asked to assess part 5 of the CCC in a way that didn't really address the guideline for the CCC. I'm wondering if you have a way to close that gap; has it been addressed? Dr. Byrne responded that this document doesn't look at specific assessments. He would refer that question to the CCC group.
Dr. Gradel added that the Planning and Budget Committee was concerned as a committee that we would not be creating redundant assessment requirements that would make us jump through hoops in ways that were not appropriate, and we asked for the appendices to be added. We were also concerned about the inter-relatedness and mutual expectations from the bottom up and from the top down, so issues such as that could be addressed in a fair and equitable manner by all parties. When we did the first review of this, it did look like more of a top down approach than we would have liked, so we asked for new language. We hope that this document would enable that and not frustrate it.
Sen. Carmen Rivera added that the plan finally incorporates the need for responses. It is now a circular rather than a linear process. Dr. Byrne then added that it is the faculty's prevue to define what assessment will be.
Sen. Wilson then said as a member on the CCC Committee, it was recognized that there was a disconnect, but there are historical reasons, not necessarily good reasons, so she would like to put in a plug for attending the CCC Idea Fest that is coming.
There was no further discussion.
The motion passed by voice vote.
The Chair asked for a motion to extend the meeting by 20 minutes. Sens. Reddy and Arnavut moved and seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Dr. H. Joseph Straight, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, brought the draft Attendance Policy (attached to the agenda) for discussion. He informed the body that there is a statement in the current catalog, and that a number of groups on campus were looking into that policy at about the same time. So there has been a bit of discussion about the existing policy. This is where we are at this point, and we would like to get your views.
Sen. Wilson said that she likes the policy. It is her understanding that the staff at LoGrasso will not write a note saying this student visited LoGrasso for health reasons. Is there any initiative to change that policy? Dr. Straight commented that with regard to the need for documentation for illness that LoGrasso being the on-campus health center is inundated with students. We don't know whether a student could have visited LoGrasso, and even if we did, we don't know how much time the staff at LoGrasso take to determine a diagnosis. That is why there are some SUNY campuses that allow "x" number of absences. Student Affairs will not go through the process of verifying if there is a death in the family, either.
Sen. Rivera commented that there is a difference between a student who misses one class due to just a cold, and one who has pneumonia and misses several classes. Those students would visit a specialist, who could verify that fact, whereas LoGrasso would say something like "this student might have pneumonia."
Dr. Gradel spoke to the policies of Student Affairs as having brought a serious detriment to the campus. She puts in her syllabus that students should go to the Office of Student Affairs for these [approved absence] requests, and the office is being extremely conservative about the number of times they will send those slips out. We need to get some guidance on whether Student Affairs will be limiting this. Dr. Straight commented that we had Student Affairs input on item 3. They are moving way down on what they are willing to do. They want to have one call, and then inform the faculty.
Sen. Reddy raised an issue that concerns him. This policy doesn't say that you really ought to be in class, especially centering around exams and major assignments, etc., where we want more of a reason for students not being there, or having a very good reason for not completing it, with very good documentation. Dr. Straight responded asking you want language saying you need an excuse with documentation, or you might have to provide it, and not from Student Affairs or LoGrasso. Sen. Arnavut agreed with Sen. Reddy's comment. We have to have something that will prove it, or this will be misused.
Sen. Schwalbe commented that special times of the semester are problematic, but a variety of courses can't be made up easily. He noted studio art and music, as examples, not just exams.
Sen. Cheryl Drout offered that if we change the phrasing from "may" to "should" that might help. Labs cannot be made up. There are partial make up opportunities, but some just can't be made up. Dr. Straight responded that the Committee understands that difficulty is there. We do feel there are legitimate reasons for a student to be missing an occasional class, but we don't want to penalize them for legitimate absences. Sen. Drout continued that a lab meets once a week, and there is no way to make it up. If students miss 25% of those labs, they should not take the lab! Dr. Straight then said that yes, that should be reviewed.
Sen. McVicker commented that she would like to see the policy include science labs and writing courses added in parentheses, and the last line takes away responsibility away from the student to petition the faculty member. The student should petition the faculty member to receive a grade of incomplete.
Sen. Bowser added that there is a separate policy for an incomplete. A student has a semester or a date specified by the faculty member to complete the work. Dr. Straight indicated that this proposed policy should be consistent with that policy.
Sen. Grady suggested there was a bit of an inconsistency: the policy to have so many drops, whether for a legitimate reason or not... you can easily have a problem where a student has more athletic absences than the faculty will allow in a course. Dr. Straight answered that we have to rely on the goodwill of people. There are situations that arise, such as making the playoffs and having an extended run in those playoffs, and most of those games are during the week. There are faculty who will strictly go by the policy for their misses, and then your grades suffer, and others will be more lenient. We didn't really see a way around all the possible exceptions.
Sen. Reddy offered that we have attendance-required courses, with that fact noted in the catalog. In some instances, students may need to know at registration that one has to attend on a fairly regular basis. They won't know that unless we tell them, except for those students who rely on scuttlebutt from other students. Dr. Straight then offered that a "master syllabus" idea might be one way to deal with that.
Sen. McVicker commented on the paragraph about university sponsored programs, we need to be attentive to the examples provided in the parentheses. I've had requests from students to go on recruitment trips, and I don't feel that such trips are a university sponsored program. This language is so vague. Dr. Straight asked the faculty to provide other good examples. Please send then to him.