NOTE: On the handouts table were copies of the Fredonia view book: "Discover SUNY Fredonia". Due to their size and nature, no copy is attached to these minutes.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Reneta Barneva at 4:05 PM in Fenton 105.
The chair entertained a motion to accept the agenda. Sen. Richard Reddy (Gov. Officer) moved, and Sen. Amy Cuhel-Schuckers (At Large, Professionals/Divisional) seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The chair called for a motion approving the minutes of the meeting of Sept. 10, 2007. Sen. Reddy moved, and Sen. Ted Schwalbe (At Large, Humanities) seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Julia Wilson (Mathematical Sciences) asked about the session that had been scheduled in the President's Conference Room about this. She added that she didn't attend, thinking it would be crowded, and asked if there was going to be dissemination of the information from that meeting in the future. Pres. Hefner informed the body that his policy is to disseminate such information as often as he can. VP Herman had some materials that he had found from meetings and other campuses that he distributed to the attendees, and we've authorized getting together some one-page quick reference sheets. There will be opportunities for more such programs in the future. This is an ongoing process. Later in today's meeting VP Bennett will give you an update about the Critical Incident Task Force that SUNY put together last spring.
Dr. Horvath referred to a handout she brought (attached to these minutes on the web site and on ANGEL as: Horvath Report 2007 Oct 1.pdf )
She informed the body that an additional search has begun due to retirement, and also informed us about the formation of the Professional Development Center Advisory Committee. They will be meeting soon to determine the duties of the new Director of the Professional Development Center.
There were no questions, and VP Horvath reminded everyone to check the dates on the back of the handout!
Chair Barneva then asked the VP if she will be distributing handouts from her session on peer evaluation because there will be people interested who cannot attend. VP Horvath responded that she has great handouts, and she will be glad to post them.
The Task Force was system wide, and the charge included review of current campus practices in the area of critical incident management. There were 35 employees on the Task Force, with 14 of those coming from the campuses. The members had a wide range of backgrounds. The preliminary recommendations formed the basis of the Chancellor's testimony to the Legislature on May 1, 2007. You can find the report on the SUNY home page, under the Chancellor's section. He then reviewed some of the recommendations in the area of Risk Assessment, Emergency Response, and Communication. He informed the body that the budget recommendation coming out of the Task Force was $32 million (with $8.3 million of that targeted at the State operated campuses), and ongoing years costing a total of $24.4 million. This was submitted as a supplemental to the Legislature, but it was not acted upon. SUNY plans to include this in this year's budget request.
He reported that 50 campuses have joined in the SUNY NY Alert program, and informed us that there will be a one day conference on campus safety coming in October in Syracuse. There is a limit of 5 representatives from each campus, and our campus committee members will fill those slots (including one student, we hope.)
Questions:
Sen. Jan McVicker (English) spoke about the need for more counselors on campus. Will we get more? VP Bennett said that 60 counseling positions have been recommended being added throughout SUNY. VP Herman informed the body that the ratio right now is 1 counselor for 1500 students here. The recommended ratio is now 1 counselor for every 1000 students, so we could get some.
Sen. McVicker added that in addition to the shootings and bomb threats, she has concerns about the tazing incidents that have been reported. She hoped that this doesn't just become another police response. VP Bennett responded that we are looking at emergency notification systems. Pres. Hefner added that the University College Presidents sent a joint suggestion to the Chancellor, the number one priority was for additional counseling staff.
Sen. Dani McKinney (At Large, Soc. Sciences) asked how long it took to get the message out on the cell phones about the bomb threat. A lot of us were sitting in restaurants when the official text message came through. VP Bennett said that the message took about 20 minutes longer than was anticipated to get to cell phones. We are talking to the provider about that.
Sen. Paul Murphy (Music) asked is it possible to use the fire alarms to evacuate buildings. Pres. Hefner informed the body that fire alarms are to be used only if there is in fact a fire, unless one has to get one building emptied extremely quickly. General use of fire alarms can cause as much problems and possible dangers with firemen and equipment getting to campus (possible accidents, being one example).
Sen. Michael Grady (Physics) said that when he informed people of the bomb threat that some almost didn't believe him. They assumed that the electronic message system would be faster than word of mouth.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers told the body that there were some areas in Thomson Hall with people continuing on with their work, not knowing that anything was going on.
Dr. H. Joseph Straight offered that it isn't clear what a person's role is. When the call came to Mathematical Sciences, there weren't many faculty in their offices. As he was leaving, he looked around in Fenton and saw that there was a class in Fenton 105 that was still meeting. He informed that class of the situation, then he noticed that Fenton 108 also had a class still meeting, so he informed them, as well. He hoped he gave those two classes correct information. He just relayed what the Math secretary had told him. VP Bennett responded that there are building coordinators, who are volunteers. But large buildings need more than one person in such situations. Pres. Hefner indicated that his office started a phone tree for the departments (calling the VPs, who then call designated areas, etc.) because just walking through our bigger buildings will take too much time. We have multiple ways of getting information out.
Mr. Gadikian began by showing a chart showing library increases in overall materials budget compared to the decline in purchasing power of those monies. He indicated that what is killing the Library is inflation. The state allocation pretty much coincides with inflation, but inflation in library materials is generally larger than normal inflation, and the major dip in the red line shows that. The good news is that we are going to have a book budget this year. There will be allocations coming out very soon.
We are inventorying the entire library this year. We've begun the scanning of barcodes this summer, and are almost completed with that task. We haven't analyzed the data yet, but will be getting into that soon. It is most interesting what we have found: wildly misshelved materials (even though we have been shelf reading), books having barcodes and no records in our catalog, and even books that have no barcodes!
Questions:
Sen. Markus Vink (History) asked do you have any idea how big the allocations will be. Mr. Gadikian responded that we will have a base budget of $500 for every department, and will use our allocation formula to determine those departments that will get more than that amount.
Sen. Stephen Kershnar (At Large, Humanities) asked is it general inflation or library inflation that is killing the Library? Mr. Gadikian replied that it is library inflation, and we get that data through ALA and various publishing association datum. As far as publishers go, it is "What are you willing to pay for something?" Libraries are sort of a captive audience. The American Chemical Society is a scholarly society, but their prices are very high, and they pay their directors lots of money. Elsevier, the publisher that libraries love to hate, gives phenomenal returns to its investors, and buys out smaller firms and jacks up the prices of those newly acquired serials by 60 to 150 percent.
Sen. Ziya Arnavut (At Large, Nat. Sciences) asked if there were any increase in the state budget. Mr. Gadikian answered that he honestly thought there is very little that will happen on individual campuses. He thinks that whatever will happen might be along the lines of SUNYwide purchasing, possibly purchasing library resources collectively, or the system might take over some of the costs for electronic materials, freeing up those funds for the local campus libraries. We pay around $38,000.00 for Elsevier ScienceDirect, while UB pays roughly $1 million for its share. The system might take over all such expenses. UB will obviously benefit more than us from such a move, but at least it will free up our local resources. As far as additional money coming to libraries that can go to individual library budgets, he is not very hopeful. He asked Pres. Hefner if he had heard any rumblings, and the President indicated he had not heard that the system will be asking for dollars for campus libraries. They will ask for additional operating dollars, and then the campuses will allocate those funds to whatever units they wish. Mr. Gadikian continued that one approach the libraries have tried is to push the idea of joint purchases of electronic content for many of the things that several of our campuses are purchasing independently. In order to achieve that, we have put "local" money into a pool to be used for such purposes. The campuses tend not to play well together, but our libraries do.
Sen. McVicker asked about Library hours. Faculty and grad students are concerned the Library seems to be closing more frequently, especially during breaks and at the beginning and ends of the semesters. She understands that there is a fine line concerning finding people who can staff it, but faculty, new TAs, undergraduates, etc. use the breaks for preparing conference papers, doing research, etc. If students get the message that the Library is closed because we are on a break, it implies that research is not an ongoing task. Isn't there some kind of compromise? It isn't just electronic resources we need. Mr. Gadikian asked for a specific example of when this was experienced. Sen. McVicker responded Labor Day weekend was one example, and the upcoming October Break. People are going to need to do some work over those. Mr. Gadikian said that the Labor Day weekend was a different problem because it coincided so closely with the start of the semester. The Library has not received complaints other than one message regarding that weekend. But thank you! Sen. McVicker said that people on campus are grumbling.
Sen. Jason Mellen (Student) asked about what was being done in relation to the article in the first Leader of the year. Mr. Gadikian said that was about several facilities hours in general.
Sen. Dani McKinney raised the issue of pricing. How much of the resources you are talking about is for database access vs. the resources themselves? I hear you spend a lot of money on databases, instead of accessing the information. Mr. Gadikian answered that there are no "overhead" charges for databases. That was a pricing concept from seven or more years ago. Now publishers have instituted new models. He could remember when you could acquire Physical Review in print for maybe $15000, and electronic access had a price adding $2000 to the print cost. That kind of practice has stopped. Publishers today much prefer publishing electronically. It saves them costs of paper and presses. Libraries can get more bang for their dollars purchasing electronic versions than paper now. If we were to purchase the 30,000 titles that we have access to in full text electronically in print versions, we would be spending millions of dollars, which we obviously don't have.
Sen. Michael Grady asked since you are not receiving paper, can you save on staff who process the paper materials. Mr. Gadikian responded that the few staff we do have work on other aspects of library work, now that we do not have so many print materials to process.
Chair Barneva asked Sen. Richard Reddy, the Governance Officer, to speak to the body. Sen. Reddy said that as we know, there was a change in the bylaws about two years ago concerning Senate representation. The responsibility of election for the departments was shifted from the Governance Officer (or the old Governance Committee) to the departments. The problem now is that we on the Senate Executive Committee don't know (even though we have asked last year for this information from all of you) how the various departments actually elect their representatives. We don't know how your elections take place, or whether they use a free and open democratic process (which we simply assumed would be the norm when the Bylaws were changed.) We really do need to know from most all of the departments how you elect your representatives (or for your division for those in the professional ranks.) What kind of process do you use to know that a position is open? How do your elections take place? We are concerned that there is some sort of selection process, or appointments, based on an open and free method. We hope that the method is not weird or bizarre, and that vacancies are known by all and may be filled by any in a free and fair manner. So please DO let us know your procedures, and let us also know who we could contact if we have questions concerning your processes. And if you don't have a process, please institute one and inform us of it.
Sen. McVicker stated that she doesn't understand that if a department has elected a senator and an alternate senator why an alternate can't vote if attending a senate meeting. Sen. Reddy responded there is no language allowing alternates in the bylaws or by precedent. There is no provision for proxy votes in the bylaws. We can change that process, but it is not in the bylaws as they exist today. Proxy votes have never been permitted in this body, and one good reason is that there would be no way of knowing on the basis of discussion if the person for whom the proxy was sitting would change their vote based on the discussion. A proxy assumedly would have instructions on voting prior to hearing the discussion. Also, proxy votes are difficult when amendments are offered to the body. How would the representative who has the proxy wish the proxy to vote on such amendments?
Sen. McKinney asked how a proxy is different from an alternate. Sen. Reddy responded that a proxy would theoretically be made by a senator on an issue that s/he knew was coming up at a meeting. In the case of an alternate, this person is not a senator at this time but if someone cannot be available then that person is authorized to be in the original representative's place if they cannot attend. We do have sort of alternates for those who can't be here for a semester or a year. Typically we are chosen for a term, usually three years except for our student representatives or ex officio members. Someone who is not willing to serve or goes on sabbatical is replaced for the remainder of their term. Sometimes the person replacing the original representative may be perceived as being only there for the duration of the semester, and those kinds of arrangements do occur, but they make it more complex for us determining who is really filling the position and for what term. Technically speaking, people who are elected almost universally serve for three year terms.
Dr. Straight pointed out that a system of alternates could be worked out. He asked Sen. Cheryl Drout, Fredonia's Senator at the SUNY-wide University Senate, if she notifies the SUNY-wide Senate when her official alternate will be attending instead of her. Sen. Drout answered yes. Sen. Reddy agreed that it could be done, but we'd have to go through the amending process to change the bylaws.
Chair Barneva announced that Avril Otis had resigned from the Task Force on Tenure and Promotion Policies. The Senate Executive Committee would like to nominate Ms. Monica White to fill this vacancy. She asked if there were any nominations for the seat from the floor. Sen. Ziya Arnavut asked why do we do this; why not an election. Chair Barneva answered that there is no campus election for appointed committees. The Senate just approves or rejects the appointees. We approved a slate of names at the last meeting. Sen. Arnavut commented that original list should be consulted. Chair Barneva informed the body that former Chair Mary Carney had indicated that the list of possible appointees from the spring had been reviewed, and there were no people on it who could represent the same interests that Ms. Otis was covering. She repeated the call for nominations from the floor. Sen. McVicker then stated a concern that this had been a position held by the professional staff and now it is a Student Affairs administrator. Chair Barneva said we wanted someone from Student Affairs and a minority. We contacted VP Herman to ask for nominations, and we didn't get many. There being no further nominations, the vote was taken. Ms. White's being added to the Task Force was approved by voice vote.
Chair Barneva announced that at the last meeting of the Senate, Karen Klose had reported on the Information Security Committee, where she asked for two representatives from the faculty for this new committee. The Senate Executive Committee would propose Nancy Gee (Psychology) and Anatole Ruslanov (Computer Science) to serve on the Information Security Committee. The Chair called for further nominations or discussion. There was none. The two nominees were approved by unanimous voice vote.
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Dr. H. Joseph Straight
Dr. Straight (Chair, Academic Affairs Committee) informed the body that the Calendar Subcommittee is being revamped, and will be working more as a subcommittee under Academic Affairs than as an independent group. We are still looking for a student member for this Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will be working on calendars for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Please send any suggestions to Dr. Straight. The calendar hopefully will be brought to the Senate by early or mid spring semester for approval. The members of the Calendar Subcommittee were available on a handout (attached to the electronic version of these minutes as: Calendar Subcommittee 2007 Oct 1.pdf)
Sen. Nan Bowser (Academic Affairs) asked why there was no representation from the Registrar's Office. There has always been such representation. Dr. Straight said that he'd wondered that himself. He would be willing to add someone or possibly we could have someone from the Registrar's Office as a resource person. Sen. Bowser indicated that even an ex officio seat would be acceptable. Dr. Straight indicated that he had asked the various Vice Presidents for nominations along with some indication of what had been past practice, and the Registrar's Office representative got lost.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers asked if there was a grad student representative. Dr. Straight replied there was not specifically a seat for a grad student.
Dr. Straight informed the body that the Academic Forgiveness Committee has been formed. The membership of this Committee was distributed at the meeting on a handout (attached to the electronic version of these minutes as: Acad Forgiveness Comm 2007 Oct 1.pdf) the general outline of this group was approved by this body when the policy was passed. He feels they put together a good, diverse group.
Discussion Item: Transfer Credit
In opening the discussion on the proposed policy on transfer credit (attached to the agenda for this meeting), Dr. Straight informed the body that policies from some sister institutions had been reviewed. He added that the Admissions Office felt that we might not attract as many applicants if we put this policy in effect, so we compromised by saying that this policy was when a student matriculated, and that once the student was here s/he we would no longer accept D grades. The Committee will be happy to hear comments regarding this proposed policy.
Sen. Arnavut asked why specifically C- and not C. Dr. Straight responded that when colleges have such a policy not to accept D grades, they will accept C grades, which include the grade of C-. Some colleges don't use the plus or minus system.
Sen. Bowser commented that we presently have course repeat policy that requires a C (not a C-). This doesn't change that policy. Could we please add such a statement to this policy? She offered "for purposes of course repeat, no grade less than a C (or possibly use language such as 2.0)... " And please refer the student to that policy, as well. Dr. Straight agreed that the statement of policy ought to be in this place in the catalog, as well.
Sen. McVicker commented that she was a bit confused. You want to allow students to transfer in D grades at the time of matriculation? At the time we admit, these would be accepted? That doesn't make sense to me. Dr. Straight said if you can come up with a better way of saying it, he'd be happy to receive such language.
Sen. Grady then asked when a student applies, they might go to a summer course and not send the transcript in until two years later. Which policy does such a situation cover? Dr. Straight said that if the initial transfer credit would be proven within a reasonable amount of time, we would apply the new policy.
Sen. Reddy asked to offer an editorial suggestion. Do we ever have our own students transfer in grades other than the standard letter grades? Such as Pass/Fail or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory? If yes, how would that apply here? The Registrar has to make a judgment call. Sen. Bowser (putting on her Registrar's hat) responded that we don't accept Pass/Fail grades, but do accept Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory sometimes. We have to ask if it was the student's choice for that form of grading. If it is not the student's choice, we allow it. If the student elected to be graded that way, rather than a letter grade, we do not. That is in the catalog. This language may have to be qualified to make it clear.
Sen. McKinney commented that thinking about readmission or reinstatement, if they had Ds originally, what happens? We are only looking at the new credits they might be transferring in. What they received as grades originally, you're not willing to take when they come back? You're telling them something different. Dr. Straight agreed that we might need to clean up the language. Sen. McKinney continued that what we said was okay at first [upon matriculation] is not okay any longer [after the student is admitted.]
Sen. Arnavut added that this creates an inequality. It would be better to say C or better for all circumstances.
Sen. Bowser asked when the Academic Affairs Committee last spoke to the Admissions Office. Would the Committee be willing to discuss the question of accepting the D grade originally with the new Director of Admissions? Dr. Straight indicated that no Ds would solve the problem in one sense. No Ds would be good from our point of view, but the Admissions Office back when this was first being explored said it would hurt us in terms of transfers.
Sen. Murphy commented that we ought to be discussing the issue of whether Ds should be accepted. Neither Jamestown CC nor Geneseo accepts Ds.
Sen. Arnavut returned to the hurt recruitment comment by asking what are the statistics. Dr. Straight indicated that he hadn't had time to pull other examples out, Brockport possibly. Sen. Bowser added we surveyed other schools. It is highly unusual for a school to be accepting Ds within the SUNY system. Dr. Straight responded one could argue that it could be a positive device, accepting good students. At those schools that don't accept D credit, occasionally a department might be allowed to accept a D grade subsequent to enrollment. Sen. Bowser noted that Institutional Studies does look at success rates of transfer students, and they are "neck and neck" with our regular students. Transfers seem to do well here.
At this point, Chair Barneva noted that it was 5:30 and we need a motion to continue the meeting. Sen. Markus Vink moved that the meeting be extended for an additional ten minutes. Sen. Chris Taverna (At Large, Professionals/Divisional) seconded. There being no discussion, the vote was taken and the motion passed on unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Reddy offered the observation that grade inflation has taken place, and it would not be naive as to think that such has happened on other campuses, as well. We have never heard of the "gentleperson's D". Dr. Straight said if the body would just as soon not accept this, and that he could check again with Admissions.
Sen. Julia Wilson commented that if we didn't accept D credit with incoming transfers, what the impact to resources would be. We'd be adding students to classes they did not get a C in.
STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: VP David Herman
Chair Barneva announced that VP Herman had to leave, so we'd hear his report at the next meeting.
REPORT OF THE SUNY-WIDE FACULTY SENATOR: Dr. Cheryl Drout
Sen. Drout:
Changing the Requirements for the Bachelor's Degree (from Academic Affairs Committee, first proposed at the Sept. 10, 2007, meeting)
Sen. Vink informed the body that the History Department supports the proposal.
Sen. Guy Boysen (Psychology) informed the body that a majority of the Psychology Dept. are against this change, and the Chair of the Department does not want to see it to occur.
Sen. McVicker moved the following amendment, to replace the second paragraph in the original proposal:
"This change would apply to students entering in the Fall of 2009 and thereafter. The committee recognizes that some departments may need to make certain adjustments - in advising handouts, or to course prerequisites, or to listing of certain courses in the CCC - in order to accommodate anticipated higher demand for courses in the discipline from their majors. In the interim, departments in the College of Arts and Humanities, which voted unanimously to support this proposal, should be allowed to grant waivers to those B.A. students applying for graduation who have earned at least 66 but less than 75 credit hours from disciplines outside their majors. Departments in other colleges may grant waivers, or not, as their resources allow, prior to Fall 2009."
Sen. McKinney seconded.
Sen. Arnavut responded that he thinks that is good.
A call for a quorum was voiced. The Senators (including ex officio members) were asked to raise their hands, and it was determined that a quorum was present.
Sen. Reddy asked Dr. Straight, are you asking that this be postponed and placed higher on the agenda at the next meeting. Dr. Straight replied affirmatively. Sen. Reddy indicated that such a motion could be made now.
Sen. McKinney moved to extend the meeting ten minutes. Sen. Arnavut seconded. There being no discussion, the vote was taken and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Reddy moved that this motion and discussion be postponed until the next meeting of the Senate, and that it be placed higher on the agenda to afford full discussion. The motion was seconded by Sen. Samantha Kenney.
Sen. Murphy spoke in favor, saying that this issue was too important to rush.
Sen. McKinney asked if we will consider Sen. McVicker's amendment when we return to the topic at the next meeting. Sen. Reddy indicated that yes, the amendment would be handled first.
There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. The motion to postpone passed by voice vote.
Sen. Neil Feit (Philosophy) commented that the most important things we do are the action items. In general we should put those as far up in the agenda as possible.
Sen. McVicker commented that Robert's Rules of Order prevent discussion and debate. She thinks we should abandon using them.
A motion to adjourn was made by Sen. Reddy and seconded by Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers. There being no discussion, the motion was passed by unanimous voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney
Faculty Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Attendance Sheet
Student Affairs Committee Annual Report
Academic Forgiveness Committee
Calendar Subcommittee
Cover letter - Periodic Evaluation
Virginia Horvath Report
Guide for Periodic Evaluation of Academic Programs