Minutes, May 4, 2009 meeting
The meeting was called to order at approximately 4:05 in room S-104 of the Williams Center.
Chair Ana Maria Klein informed the body that there will be some amendments to the proposed agenda. Dr. H. Joseph Straight (Chair, Academic Affairs Committee) indicated that under "Action Items" the Academic Affairs Committee would begin with the Academic Master Plan, and finish with the Proposed Pilot Study of Online Course Evaluations. Under "Discussion Items" for the first item please remove "Proposed" and list it as "Policy on Transfer Credit Appeals". The second item can be re-titled as "Issues Related to S/U Grades". Sen. Christopher Taverna (At Large, Professionals) asked that under the Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee's report that a brief overview of the recent survey be added. Sen. Kevin Kearns (Ex Officio, Assoc. VP of Graduate Studies and Research) asked that under the Graduate Council's report that these items are all for voting today. The fact that the suspension of the Master's in Social Studies had been discussed at our last meeting was inadvertently left out of those materials. And the MM items should all be action items because they were discussed in the March meeting.
A motion was made and seconded that the agenda be approved as amended. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
It was moved and seconded that the Minutes of the meeting of April 6, 2009, be approved. Hearing no discussion, the vote was taken, and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Report of the President: Dr. Dennis Hefner
Pres. Hefner reported:
· The new Chancellor will be visiting our campus on August 17, and has agreed to keynote the PDC Teaching and Learning Conference on that date
· Enrollment is really strong; as of this time application s are up by 149 over last year, and we have accepted fewer students, so our quality has been raised. We are running two deposits ahead of last year, and this coming Wednesday we will probably be closing freshman applications. Transfer applications will continue for another 4 to 6 weeks. They tend to come in after spring semester grades have been received.
· This coming Thursday we are having the ground breaking for the new Child Care Center on the corner of Brigham Rd. and Temple St. You all are invited, and you will likely see lots of children running around in hard hats!
· Next Monday, he will be presenting about our campus to one of the Trustee's Committees. The Committee asked to have "introductions" to the campuses to help their newer members learn about SUNY.
· There will be a memo out later this month with announcements. He congratulated the Senate for getting through another year; congratulated Ana Maria Klein and all the outgoing officers and the incoming officers and senators, and expressed his appreciation for all the work each does to make shared governance happen. He wished the student representatives, especially the seniors, well.
There were no questions.
Report of the VP for Academic Affairs: Dr. Virginia Horvath
Dr. Horvath informed the body that her report on the results of this year's searches has been made available on the Senate's ANGEL and web sites. She noted that the projected document is not in color, so we might not be able to read that there are three verbal acceptances, along with the completed searches. Her office doesn't consider a search to be completed until the actual paperwork comes back signed. Only one search this year looks like it will be unsuccessful. We have great candidates coming in, and all were very grateful that we told them that these are real searches; we would not have brought anyone to campus for interviews if they were not; and we do not expect to be eliminating these positions due to budget problems as long as they are filled.
Dr. Horvath finished by thanking all those who were involved in the search process this year. She appreciated the work that was put into these searches. She thanked the Senate and the Committees for all the work they did during this academic year. She also expressed thanks to outgoing Senate officers Ana Maria Klein, Vincent Courtney, and Cheryl Drout.
Report of the Chair: Dr. Ana Maria Klein
Dr. Klein relinquished the floor to:
Dean Christine Givner (College of Education), who reported that last week the College of Education received an email from NCATE's Unit Accrediting Board indicating that SUNY Fredonia has received full accreditation for its initial programs, and conditional accreditation for its advanced programs. All we have to do to get those squared away is to submit a report by October 1. This is truly good news!
Bruce Simon (Ex Officio, Vice-Chair), who took us through the proposed substantive bylaws changes:
Item 1:
Clarifying some of the terms, such as "ex officio", Robert's Rules interpretations, and "correcting lists".
Hearing no discussion or questions, the vote was taken on Item 1. This passed by unanimous voice vote.
Item 2:
This item deals with all the places that require changes from our proposed action to have the Library Faculty stand alone and not be counted as "Professionals".
Hearing no discussion or questions, the vote was taken on Item 2. The item passed by unanimous voice vote.
Item 3:
Corrects the inadvertent dropping of language concerning the Senate Executive Committee.
Hearing no discussion or questions, the vote was taken on Item 3. The item passed by unanimous voice vote.
Item 4:
Changes relating to the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee
Sen. Taverna asked has it always been past practice for this Committee to have its professional seats held one by a professional and the other by a librarian? He just wondered why the change from two professional seats. Dr. Kathleen Gradel (Chair, Planning and Budget Advisory Committee) responded that the professional representative on the Committee proposed this because so little of what comes before the Committee affects the professionals on campus, and it helped us to maintain an odd number of seats so we wouldn't have tie votes. The professional representative also felt that as long as there was a Library representative on the Committee, it would be all right.
Sen. Taverna also commented that the reference in this Item to the "University Senate Governance Committee" should say "Governance Officer." Sen. Simon agreed, saying that no one caught that! It will be changed.
Dr. Straight expressed a concern about appointment o f the members of this Committee in the spring. There might be lots to consider at that time, and they'll have to prepare the annual report. Perhaps we should move this to the fall semester? Dr. Gradel informed the body that the membership of the Committee has been fairly stable, and if it does become an issue we could consider this change in the future. We tried very hard to bring our policies into line with the calendar that will be in the Senate bylaws.
Sen. Simon informed the body that toward the end of the semester, we look to see what seats are becoming vacant on the Committees and in the Senate. The new members don't take their seats until July 1. Dr. Gradel added that the seats need to be filled because this is one Committee that does meet over the summer. Dr. Straight then stated that we need not worry about this now, but we should watch and keep this suggested change in mind if problems develop.
Dr. Straight continued in Academic Affairs Committee, we hoped to have elections in early April and the newly constituted Committee could then meet for an organizational meeting shortly thereafter to elect the Committee's officers for the next academic year, thus allowing us to begin business as soon as we come back to campus.
Sen. Ziya Arnavut (At Large, Natural Sciences) asked don't we elect this Committee? Sen. Simon responded we haven't elected the Planning and Budget Committee for many years. It has been an appointed committee for several years now. The Committee has discussed this, and has indicated they prefer to remain appointed.
Sen. Steve Kershnar (Philosophy) asked what is the downside of electing? Sen. Simon replied with appointments, you can get members who are comfortable looking at budgetary issues and have a campus-wide view. A downside of electing could be you can't get the kinds of experience that is most valuable. There have been several P&B committees in the past where we've had difficulty getting seats filled, or elected members haven't been all that interested in fulfilling their obligations.
Hearing no further discussion or questions, the vote was taken for Item 4. The item passed by voice vote.
Item 5:
Changes relating to the Academic Affairs Committee
Hearing no discussion or questions on Item 5, the vote was taken. The item passed by unanimous voice vote.
Item 6:
Changes to the College Core Curriculum Committee
Hearing no discussion or questions, the vote was taken for Item 6. The Item passed by unanimous voice vote.
Item 7:
Changes to the Student Affairs Committee
Sen. Nick Dhimitri (Student Association) commented that the language concerning student members starting at the beginning of the semester following their election was problematic. Since students are usually elected to the Standing Committees in the fall, this language would mean they would likely miss the first semester. We need to change this language to say something like they will begin their terms in the semester of their election.
Sen. Kerrie Wilkes (Library) commented if there are 3 professionals and 3 faculty, should we have language specifying there should be a librarian? And Sen. Doug Jordan (Student Association) added that there might be need for a seat for a graduate student? After some discussion, it was decided that we would add two seats, have the committee be comprised of 7 students (including one graduate student) to be elected through the Student Association, and 7 faculty/staff (to be composed of 3 professionals, 3 teaching faculty and one librarian).
Hearing no further discussion or questions, the vote was taken regarding Item 7. The item passed by unanimous voice vote.
Item 8:
Changes to language concerning Administrative Review Committees, aligning our language to correspond with the practices as agreed to by the SUNY Faculty Senate.
Hearing no discussion or questions, the vote was taken on Item 8. The item passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Item 9
Changing the amending process to make editorial changes easier.
Hearing no discussion or questions from the floor, the vote was taken on Item 9. The item passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Simon informed the body that these and the editorial changes that were passed at a previous meeting will now be put to a vote of the full faculty. Please keep reminding your constituents to make sure they vote or at least abstain, but send in their ballots. There is a minimum quorum for this vote. If we don't get that number of ballots returned, this will all have been for naught!
Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee: Christopher Taverna, Chair
Sen. Taverna gave a brief overview of the recent survey. The return rate was 21%, which was better than the past, but still pretty low. Some responders had problems with the content, but that was taken from the two forums, so if you want to see things included that weren't this time around, participate in the forums, or inform a member of the Committee privately of concerns or needs.
Then Sen. Taverna moved to the Committee's proposal regarding the draft personnel policies. The Committee is recommending that we take a step back, do some substantial investigation of all the issues using three groups: faculty, librarians, and professionals. We are recommending that these subcommittees look at aspects important to their areas. We want to make certain that the work of the original Task Force is recognized, and all that has been provided recently through the comments from departments and individuals as well. We are hesitant to put in a specific timeline, but we were also hesitant to leave such a timeline completely out so we gave these subcommittees a rough timeline. We would expect the work of the subcommittees to be looked over by the FPAC, and then the Sen. Exec. Committee. If everything fell together quickly, realistically we'd have to have it in by February 2010 so we could have sufficient campus and Senate discussion prior to voting, if these are to be in place by the 2010-2011 academic year. Adjunct faculty have come to us asking for a subcommittee to look at their issues, so we are recommending that we include a subcommittee for adjunct faculty, as well. All of these subcommittees will look over what relates to their areas, and will also determine what is in the strict purview of UUP, and what can be done without UUPs assent.
Questions:
Sen. Kershnar asked what are we investigating again? Last year we had a Task Force. Are we asking the subcommittees to be looking at the draft or go back to the drawing board? All of these committees are going to need a charge. Sen. Taverna answered these subcommittees will be taking in all that has been done in the past few years. Everyone will comment on issues relevant to their group. We want to make sure that whatever policy recommendations that come out of this will have as much campus-wide agreement as possible.
Sen. Wilkes then asked so are we going to have these subcommittees write policy? Sen. Taverna answered yes, as far as it relates to their group. But the FPAC would then get their input and put it all together for the campus as a whole.
Sen. Arnavut said he liked the idea, but we have not had enough debate on this in the Senate. There are emails on Proftalk, and comments from departments and groups of people, but it has not been debated at all in Senate. When we were reviewing changes to the GCP, we had extra meetings of the Senate to discuss and debate the relevant issues. This is at least as serious as the changes which created the CCC. We need to debate this before the subcommittees are formed. Sen. Simon responded that his proposal would be to get the subcommittees established this summer and keep gathering information. We haven't produced that ‘conceptual map' that we'll need, so in September, if we have that map we can then look at this issue by issue for a limited time each Senate meeting. By the time the recommended policies come to us, we'll have gotten through a lot of the discussion and the debating. Sen. Arnavut followed up asking why not dedicate specific times for discussing this? Sen. Taverna responded saying we certainly have given people and departments opportunity for input. We have comments from departments, groups, and individuals. As to a debate, we can allow that as well. Sen. Peter Sinden (Sociology, etc.) followed up on Sen. Wilkes's question: does this particular policy exist as a motion before the Senate [meaning the current draft]? Sen. Simon answered no, the FPAC is investigating the entire issue from as many perspectives as it can, and what is before the Senate is its report on how it feels we should proceed after having done some investigation. Committees can have items for discussion within their reports.
Sen. Jonathan Chausovsky (Political Science) then asked about UUP. There apparently is going to have to be some kind of an agreement with UUP about what is covered and what is not, and some kind of memorandum of understanding... could you give a timetable about that? Sen. Taverna responded certainly we are thinking that the subcommittees would have UUP representation. As far as anything else is up to the Executive Committee. Sen. Simon then added once he takes office in July, he will try to set up some meetings with the new Executive Committee. We will try to work up the language for the charges for the subcommittees. There may need to be a memorandum of understanding or some other kind of legal-type language. We don't know exactly what will be needed, but we like this model with everyone working collaboratively. Sen. Chausovsky followed up: so it will be between the Executive Committee... Sen. Simon responded yes, we will have direct contact with the executive board of the local union. Sen. Sinden then asked, at what point will this body discuss the substance of the draft proposal? Sen. Simon answered back in August, there were learning assistants guidelines proposed, and only today are we voting on those in their final language. So hopefully, we can do this as quickly as those or quicker. Sen. Sinden followed up asking what is it that the Senate will eventually have in their hands? Sen. Simon responded language from the FPAC that is policy language. Sen. Taverna added it is the FPAC's charge to create policy.
Sen. Adrienne McCormick (English) asked at what point do we come up against the final bullet? I thought we were going to recommend whether or not we should talk to the Union about opening local negotiations with regard to the current draft? Sen. Taverna replied we can ‘talk amongst ourselves' without that. There is no reason that we can't start this process. We want to be sure that we recognize that there are three pieces of this puzzle, not just two: the administration, the Senate, and UUP. Sen. Simon added we are not at a position where we can make such a recommendation. We want to explore it first. Sen. McCormick followed up: so the recommendation to the Union will come out of the policy that FPAC will draft? When and how will we decide that there will be a fourth committee? Sen. Taverna replied that FPAC has the ability to create its own subcommittees, though we may be able to be overridden by the Senate. Sen. McCormick then stated so if we approve this, we will add the fourth area.
Sen. Kershnar asked what are we going to be voting on? Sen. Simon responded whether or not we will pursue the strategy that is outlined in this FPAC report, forming these subcommittees, trying to work collaboratively from the start, etc. Sen. Kershnar then added so if we thought that this process would make things worse, we should vote no? Sen. Simon agreed with that.
Sen. Wilkes asked who would be investigating? Sen. Taverna answered the subcommittees consisting of administration, faculty/staff and UUP. Sen. Wilkes followed up: but I thought we have been told we couldn't talk to anyone in the administration about these earlier? Why is it okay now? Sen. Taverna responded that he was working with the model that had been given to him. Sen. Simon answered that this is okay, because it is coming through a Senate committee (bottom up versus top down). We will be proposing language rather than responding to language from the top.
Sen. Kershnar moved for a secret ballot. Sen. Wilkes seconded. Sen. Kershnar supported his motion by arguing that this might make things worse, and untenured Senators might not feel comfortable having to cast their vote in public.
The motion passed with more than ten votes, which is the requirement in the bylaws.
Sen. Simon asked if there were any amendments? At that point there were none.
Sen. Phil Hastings (Visual Arts and New Media) asked who will be on the subcommittees? Sen. Simon answered the Senate alone can't hammer that out, but we will present the proposed makeup of the subcommittees to the Senate for approval.
Sen. Sinden asked and what is the product? Sen. Taverna replied the ultimate product is that each subcommittee will recommend their ideas for policy relating to their area or group. The FPAC will then review these, make changes if it feels necessary, and recommend that final working to the Senate. Sen. Sinden asked if the Senate will see a draft of the policies from each of the subcommittees. Sen. Taverna responded no, the subcommittees will not be writing language for the entire campus, only recommended policy for within the area they are working on. The FPAC will do the writing of the overall draft.
Sen. McCormick asked would all the proceedings we've already written up to this point would just come back to us? Sen. Taverna said everything that has been submitted up to this point would be taken into consideration unless your positions have changed. [If you change your mind you'd have to send new comments.] Sen. McCormick followed up: so the subcommittee dealing with faculty issues would get the 18 reports that have been submitted? Sen. Simon responded plus any new ones that should come along over the summer, plus the survey results. Sen. McCormick asked if there would be a consensus sought? Sen. Simon responded we don't think we'll achieve consensus, but we would certainly take into account the "lay of the land" and try to come up with the best policy for the institution as a whole. Sen. Taverna added the ultimate goal is to come up with something that is going to pass.
Sen. Hastings commented that the draft policy as it is written right now also talks about promotions. Shouldn't there be a subcommittee for that also? Sen. Taverna responded that would fall under the tenure-track faculty grouping. Sen. Simon asked are you saying there are potential differences between the tenured and tenure-track faculty? Sen. Hastings replied yes. Sen. Simon then said so five subcommittees instead of four? Sen. Hastings then moved that. Sen. Rittelmann seconded.
Sen. Wilkes then commented that library faculty and tenure-track faculty are the same, but with differing issues and needs. So here comes the duck-billed-platypus again. Does librarians' group need to cover everything that is in the teaching faculty's group? We need at least some kind of liaison to keep our conversations aligned, possibly. Sen. Simon responded that gets into the staffing and charging of the subcommittees. Sen. Taverna added and these subcommittees can talk to one another.
After additional discussion, it was determined that the goal of the motion was to make it possible for untenured faculty to speak honestly about these issues. Dr. Nancy Hagedorn (History) stated that there is a difference between the subject of the committees and the makeup of the committees, which is very different from the processes by which they will gather their information. At the information gathering level you have to be careful and make it safe for untenured people to express their opinions openly, but writing the policy language can be done with all on a subcommittee and it can work. Sen. Simon helped the issue along by indicating that those who are selected to serve on the subcommittees will likely not be shrinking wallflowers, and they won't likely be working with others from their own departments, so they can work as honestly as we'd like them to be able to. In the end, both the mover and the seconder agreed to withdraw the motion.
Sen. Kershnar then commented that there are good reasons to vote no on the draft that has been put forth by the administration: the push for standardization across campus; the creation of the University Personnel Committee that very few have liked... if we vote yes on this proposal are we opening the door to have all of that put into place? Sen. Simon replied that a no vote would mean we'd have to come back in September with a new role. Sen. Kershnar said, no we'd just have to live with current policy. Sen. McCormick responded there is no ‘current procedure'.
Sen. Simon added we are looking at 12 pages or so from a 60-page section of the Faculty Handbook. We don't know the status of the Faculty Handbook. We felt we should look at these policies. Do we want the process to come out with an outcome that you personally could support; if not then we would be thrown back onto a 1995 policy. Dr. Straight then commented that the FPAC could decide to do this anyway; they are just being polite and asking your blessing before they go ahead. Sen. Simon added we are asking because we wouldn't want the committee to be wasting its time.
At this point the question was called. Chair Klein appointed Sen. Simon to be the teller once all the paper votes were gathered. The meeting continued.
Report of the Graduate Council: Dr. Kevin Kearns
All of our proposals have been previously presented in the Senate. Most of them had to do with changes in the Music programs.
The MM in Theory and Composition has been approved to be suspended and broken into two separate degree programs: MM in Music Composition and MM in Theory. The courses that go along with each have also been presented and the paperwork for all has been posted to the Senate ANGEL and web sites.
Hearing no further discussion or questions, the votes were taken.
To suspend the MM in Theory and Composition and create two separate degree programs: MM in Music Composition; MM in Theory
Sen. Amy Cuhel-Schuckers (At Large, Professionals) asked what the net effect would be with regard to resources? Sen. Kearns responded, none. These will be taught by current faculty.
The motion of the Council passed by unanimous voice vote.
Sen. Kearns then briefly reviewed the proposed new MM in Collaborative Piano.
Hearing no discussion or questions, the vote was taken. The new degree program MM in Collaborative Piano passed by voice vote.
Sen. Kearns then presented the Council's motion to suspend the program M. Ed. in Social Studies Adolescent Education.
Sen. Lisa Eikenburg asked why this was being done. Sen. Kearns responded historically low enrollments; lack of support for the pedagogical direction...
Dr. Gradel asked if there was any plan for that content or pedagogy to be introduced into another unit on campus? Sen. Kearns responded yes, the College of Education can absorb those through an existing program, and History is looking at their options, such as a certificate program.
Hearing no further discussion or questions, the vote was taken. The motion from the Council passed by unanimous voice vote.
Report of the Academic Affairs Committee: Dr. H. Joseph Straight
First on the agenda was the formal approval of the Academic Master Plan as presented.
Hearing no discussion or questions, the vote was taken. The motion of the Committee passed by unanimous voice vote.
Next, Dr. Straight outlined the motion concerning the Policy for Use of Undergraduate Learning Assistants. At the last meeting we approved the policy, and wanted some revisions in the language. One of the main desires was for language explicitly prohibiting use of undergraduates to grade other undergraduates. He then showed that change in the language, and indicated that the entire section on undergraduate learning assistants grading had been removed.
Sen. Sinden asked how much does this authorize or allow undergraduates to engage in teaching other undergraduates? Dr. Straight there is language allowing on occasion and under supervision of the instructor the use of an undergraduate to teach a class. Since there will be syllabus review for these, we will be looking very closely at the syllabi to make sure there is not overuse of undergraduates as teachers.
Sen. Dhimitri asked about implementing these policies. For classes that are currently using undergraduate learning assistants, presumably they are not going to be changing their syllabi. Dr. Straight replied that we are going to allow things to proceed as they did before during the next academic year. At some point during the next academic year those who are currently using undergraduate learning assistants will have to resubmit their syllabi to the Committee for review. Under the current policy, undergraduate students are not supposed to be grading other undergraduates. The enforcement of that policy is not up to our Committee, so we don't know how closely that is being enforced now.
Hearing no further discussion or questions, the vote was taken, and the motion presented by the Committee passed by voice vote.
Dr. Straight then presented the proposal for a Pilot Study of Online Course Evaluation.
Sen. Vink asked if the idea of online course evaluation hadn't had serious reservations raised by the first of two task forces dealing with this issue? Dr. Straight replied that he served on that task force, and the task force did say that this shouldn't be implemented without the Senate's approval. Some on the task force were concerned, while others were gung ho to move ahead. Academic Affairs Committee felt we just don't know enough about this to make an informed decision, so why not do a pilot study which would be voluntary as to participation. Today we'd just like to approve the idea and come back in September with more details about how it would all work.
Dr. Antosh commented that she is concerned that there hasn't been sufficient discussion about the idea of having course evaluations move to online. She attended both of the open sessions on campus, and there were only a dozen or two people at those, total. She feels that these are drastic changes, and is uncomfortable with this proposal which seems like a backdoor to implementation. Dr. Straight responded that there has been some discussion on campus, but what the task force and Academic Affairs Committee hears over and over is this wouldn't work from some quarters, and that wouldn't work from others, and this would work from still others. We are not going to know if it will work until we have tried it. We have to determine how it will work and what the best to approach it. We don't need to lose another entire academic year just talking.
Sen. Kearns asked why not rely on national studies that are out there? Our small study might not be as rigorous as something that would be published in a peer reviewed journal. It can be unique to a campus culture, and there can be great variations in how it is implemented.
Sen. Kershnar commented that there may also be a problem in that this is voluntary. We might have the most dynamic and most innovative and most wonderful professors doing it, while all the more average faculty opt not to.
Sen. Vink added that the response rate and validity of the data may have problems as well. His concern would be who would get access to the data that is created? Until now such data has supposedly been kept within the department. Dr. Straight answered we don't want to have two variables at the same time. We would report the data the same way it is reported now. We are going to be thinking about how the data could be aggregated in certain ways for use outside of the department. One of the things we need to think about is are there some ways that we can aggregate data (across the CCC, for example) while maintaining privacy, yet making useful information available to the institution.
Sen. Dhimitri asked about participation. This wouldn't be voluntary for the students? Dr. Straight responded it would be voluntary. Some of this will be in the detailed plan that we come back with. We'll probably allow emails to remind students; possibly have some sort of drawing for an iPod or something similar as an incentive. We will make sure that students who choose not to do this exercise online will not be penalized for that choice.
Dr. Antosh commented about the implementation, saying she was disturbed by the wording that says that the Committee will come back in the fall with a detailed proposal for implementation. Such wording could be used to put this into effect. It sounds like a done deal. Sen. McCormick then said that "implementation" is referring to implementation of the pilot. Dr. Antosh followed up: to what end is a pilot study before we have more open discussion on this? Those open sessions did not have many participants.
Sen. Kershnar then called for a secret ballot. Dr. Straight in his role as Parliamentarian explained to the body that there is not a need for a formal vote on this motion. We only need five Senators to agree [The bylaws actually say ten Senators - Fac. Secretary] so will those who wish to have a secret ballot regarding this proposal please raise their hands. Three senators did so. The motion for a secret ballot failed.
Dr. Hagedorn commented that a pilot study, as long as it is closely restrained and is for the purposes of gathering information can be useful, as long as we also recognize there are real issues of concern if we decide to move ahead with implementation after the pilot is completed. Those concerns are what worry a lot of people. And that is what the concern about implementation without further discussion and study once the pilot has been completed is about.
Dr. Straight reiterated that the Committee will be coming back in September with more detail, and you can vote it down then if you want to, as well.
Sen. Sinden added that we don't know in what situation the student will engage the computer, and evaluate the instructor. [Sinden? Or Straight?] If we don't try something, we don't know what the results will be. If it is clearly understood there is no going forward beyond the pilot without complete discussion and evaluation...
[Uncertain] commented that there has got to be a wealth of literature out there. Dr. Straight responded the Committee will look for that.
Hearing no further discussion or questions, the vote was taken. The motion passed by voice vote.
At this point, Sen. Simon in his role as teller, informed the body that the motion regarding the FPAC proposal for subcommittees to further investigate the issues surrounding the personnel policies passed: 26 in favor, 9 opposed, and 3 abstentions.
Then Sen. Simon presented Chair Klein with a gift of gourmet herbal teas as a thank you for her service from the Senate.
Academic Affairs Committee, Discussion Items
Fredonia Academic Community Engagement (FACE) Center
Dr. Straight presented this proposal saying the Committee has looked at it, and it seems to be in line with activities that are taking place on campus. This was presented at the last Senate meeting.
Sen. Kearns asked with the stipends and course releases, how much will this cost? VP Horvath answered $12,000 annually.
Hearing no further discussion or questions, the vote was taken. The Committee's motion to establish the Center passed by voice vote.
Transfer Credit Appeal Process
Dr. Straight explained that this is just codifying what we already do, and revision was needed because the SUNY Provost's Office in now allowing students to appeal transfer credit decisions. Therefore we had to make our process more formal.
There were no questions.
S/U Grade Issues
Dr. Straight explained that currently at Fredonia, we have courses that are graded S/U. If a student gets an S (Satisfactory), they receive credit for the course but that has no effect on their GPA. If a student gets a U (Unsatisfactory) grade, they receive no credit AND that many credits of a failing grade impact their GPA. The College of Education raised this issue because students who get a U in their student teaching (15 credits) have a very detrimental impact on their academic careers. If they try to move into another major so they will be able to graduate, many areas are closed to them because the impact of 15 credits of the equivalent of an F will take their cumulative GPA below the standards of departments accepting changes in majors. We are proposing that both the S and the U grades should have no impact on the GPA. This is in fact what all the other SUNY units do. We have been unable to find any other SUNY school that handles these as we do. Now some departments offer fairly low credit courses (usually from 1 to 3 credit hours), and those departments argue that they need the U grade to be included in the calculation of the GPA to keep their students on task. So an alternative might be to have a new pairing along with the old S/U. We're calling that S/V, where the V grade would not have an impact on the GPA. And a third option would be to leave things as they are.
Discussion:
Sen. Sinden would individual faculty and/or departments elect which of those grade pairings would be used for a particular course? Dr. Straight answered yes.
Sen. Taverna commented that if all the other SUNY schools are doing this differently from the way we do, then why aren't we? Dr. Straight (jokingly) responded we have a tradition of being more rigorous.
Sen. Samantha Kenney (Theatre & Dance) asked why not let the S grade have a positive impact on the GPA? Dr. Straight then said how would you compute it? Do you let the S equal an A? No matter what you do with the S, students will still complain. Sen. Kenney added that it just seems simpler in her mind. Dr. Straight then offered that perhaps we could tweak this and says in order to get an S, a student should have at least the equivalent of a C- level or better.
Sen. McCormick added that this is important for the students who are taking 15 credit hours as S/U. A student couldn't recover from this. If they fail that 15-credit block, they won't be able to transfer into another degree program.
Sen. Lisa Eikenburg (University Advancement) asked if there wasn't also a financial aid issue here? Dr. Straight then asked wouldn't the S/V do the same thing to them if there is a financial aid problem? A good question to ask!
Sen. Dhimitri commented that if the S doesn't affect the GPA, then it makes sense that the U shouldn't affect the GPA. But there are consequences of some type, such as not being able to complete the degree that you intended to receive if it is a required course. We should be doing what the rest of SUNY is doing.
Sen. Vink asked why not give them a letter grade for student teaching? Registrar Nan Bowser explained that S/U is used for internships, some seminars, and some physical education courses. It is used when a department determines that a letter grade is not warranted. It has been reported that if a student earns a B in student teaching, it becomes very difficult for them to get a position teaching.
[Uncertain] suggested that we go to the S/V option because freshman seminar is S/U.
Sen. Doug Jordan (Student Association) asked what is the impact on someone in a pass/fail course right now? Dr. Straight replied that a pass/fail is an option that is chosen by the student. If you fail, it will impact your GPA. An S/U course is made so by the department.
At this point Dr. Straight asked for a straw poll.
Those in favor of option 1 (U grade not counted toward GPA): 17
Those in favor of option 2 (creating the S/V grade, along with the S/U): 6
Those in favor of option 3 (leaving it as it is): 5
Report of the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee: Dr. Kathleen Gradel
Dr. Gradel reported that the Committee put their report in writing, so you can all read it on ANGEL or the web site!
Report of the SUNY Faculty Senator: Dr. Cheryl Drout
Sen. Drout reported that her report is also in written form on ANGEL and the web site, and offered the floor to Sen. Simon who attended the Campus Governance Leaders meeting at the recent Plenary.
Sen. Simon reported one interesting thing that came from the Provost's presentation. The Provost encouraged everyone to think about the future of SUNY. She had a series of questions related to that, and Sen. Simon indicated he would write those out in a report that can be posted. Dr. Straight asked if that came from the Chancellor or the Provost, and Sen. Simon responded the Provost.
It was announced that the Middle States Steering Committee had posted their report in writing, as well.
With that, Sen. Dhimitri moved to adjourn, and Sen. Kenney seconded. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at approx. 6:10PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney, Faculty Secretary
Attachments
May 4, 2009 Minutes (.doc)
Attendance - May 4, 2009 (.doc)