2007-2008 University Senate Executive Committee
January 28, 2008
Reed Hoyt, Chair
MINUTES
Present:
Richard Collier, John Delano, Diane Dewar, Reed Hoyt,
William Lanford, Zai Liang, Eric Lifshin, Susan Phillips,
Lawrence Raffalovich, Michael Range, Karin Reinhold-Larsson,
Joan Savitt, Lawrence Schell
Guest:
Catherine Herman, Interim Vice President, Media & Marketing
Minutes:
The Minutes of December 3, 2007 were approved.
Chair’s Report by Reed Hoyt: Chair Hoyt reported that the Presidential
Search is in a transitional stage, and not quite ready to bring candidates on
campus for interviews. He introduced Interim Provost Susan Phillips. She was
in attendance for her first SEC meeting. (He also mentioned that CIO Haile will
be at the SEC February meeting, to discuss the Data Center.)
SUNY-wide Senate Report by Michael Range: Senator Range announced the
upcoming SUNY Plenary meeting and noted that Interim Chancellor Clark will be
addressing the Senators at the meeting.
Council and Committee Reports:
CAA (Council on Academic Assessment), William Lanford, Chair. No report.
COR (Council on Research), Lawrence Schell, Chair. The council reviewed
and approved committee reports regarding SUNY benevolent awards, along with
Frap A and Frap B awards.
CPCA (Council on Promotions & Continuing Appts.), Eric Lifshin, Chair.
No report.
GAC (Graduate Academic Council), Sally Friedman, Chair. At the 12/19/07
GAC meeting, the main item of business was discussion of new initiatives on
Preparing Future Faculty, sponsored by Dean Pryse and others at the university.
Among other things, these initiatives will lead to enhanced instruction of graduate
students as to their responsibilities as future faculty. To bring them into line with
other university programs, the Council also considered and passed a mostly
administrative proposal to drop doctoral residency requirements from LLC
programs. Finally, in line with GAC’s responsibility to oversee the ombuds
program, a meeting of the ombuds committee is in the works for February. Also,
GAC Chair Friedman reported that she has a time conflict with Senate and Senate
Executive Committee meetings this semester; the Council will elect a new chair.
GOV (Governance Council), John Delano, Chair. The Governance Council
has discussed three agenda items during its two recent meetings. (a) Proposed
revision to Senate Bill 0708-04 dealing with the ITLAL Director on LISC and
CAA; (b) Proposed revision of Senate Bill 0708-05 that was not approved by the
Interim President; and (c) proposal for the creation of a new layer of review for
course/program proposals originating from 'not degree-granting units' at UAlbany.
The GOV Chair has met with the Director of ITLAL, the Interim President, and
the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies to ensure that their perspectives are
represented for items 'a', 'b', and 'c', respectively, during the GOV discussions.
He has e-mailed Sue Faerman to provide her with the GOV idea for composition
of the proposed layer of review, and also to confirm whether the ITLAL Director
reports directly to her.
LISC (Council on Libraries, Information Systems, and Computing),
Lawrence Raffalovich, Chair. LISC met Friday afternoon, January 25th. (1)
The Council voted to stick with the 2005 email policy. (2) The Council
discussed potential technological solutions to the academic integrity problem
discussed at the last Senate meeting (the resolution from CaffeCoR). The
Council has no information regarding the relative merits of specialized software
to catch plagiarism compared to Google. The consensus was that there is no
technological fix. (3) Council members voted to approve a proposal to revise the
Charter to modify the name and charge of the IT Policy Usage Committee, and to
have it chaired by the CIO. This proposal is printed below. (4) LISC discussed
the continuing erosion of the Libraries' budget, which has been flat for several
years. Costs continue to rise, exacerbated by the weak dollar. Academic resources
are threatened and the Libraries' national ranking has fallen. The Library
Committee is preparing a report to be submitted to Council.
Proposed Revisions to Information Technology Policy Usage Committee
Proposed Title: The Information Technology Committee
Revised Charge:
The Committee shall consist of at least 6 but not more than 8 members, with at least 3 from
the Council. It will be chaired by the Chief Information Officer or designee.
The Committee shall review and make recommendations on IT services in support of the
University’s academic programs and goals. The Committee’s work addresses a wide
2
spectrum of information technology matters including planning, infrastructure, service
delivery and quality, access and security, and new technologies. They shall examine current
trends in information technologies which may influence IT services and changing University
priorities, emerging academic programs, and new information needs. The Office of the CIO
shall consult with the Committee on matters of IT policy. The Committee shall submit all
recommendations for approval to the Council. Policy changes are then brought to the Senate
if approved by the Council.
Rationale for Change:
The Chair of LISC and the Office of the CIO propose revisions to the LISC subcommittee
known as the Information Technology Usage Policy Committee. The goal of this revision is
to broaden the scope of the Committee’s charge and create a group with responsibilities for
campus-wide IT.
Revising the charge allows the Committee to assume an expanded role in shaping new
directions for IT on behalf of the University community. Confining the scope to IT policy
issues limits the ability of the group to examine a wider range of academic and programmatic
IT matters. Broader responsibilities will enable this group to provide valuable input for
strategic planning, examining trends and exploring new directions for campus technology
needs. The revised charge makes the responsibilities of the subcommittee similar to those of
the LISC Library Committee. This balance better reflects LISC’s broader charge to examine
campus-wide matters of the Libraries and information technologies.
The Information Technology Usage Policy Committee is part of an historical legacy
predating the appointment of a CIO. For the past several years, the Committee has had little
business, so they have met sporadically. It has also been difficult to staff. A broader charge
would give the Committee new opportunities to explore the technology needs of the campus.
Assigning the CIO or designee as permanent chair—parallel to the Library Committee—
lends continuity to the group, which is important for long-term planning, history and
information sharing.
It was agreed to bring this proposals to the next Senate meeting.
UAC (Undergraduate Academic Council),Karin Reinhold-Larsson, Chair.
UAC unanimously approved changes to the honors program in Psychology and in
Africana Studies as follows.
a.
Psychology Departmental Honors Program changes. To be admitted a
student must have an overall GPA 0f 3.25 and maintain a GPA of 3.50 in
the major. In addition the student would need to complete APSY210 and
APSY211 with a grade of C or better. The requirements for the
departmental honors program will be the same as the Psychology
Department major. The Psychology major has changed their restricted
electives into 4 sub disciplines: 1) cognitive approaches to behavior 2)
clinical and developmental approaches to behavior 3) social basis of
behavior and 4) biological basis of behavior.
b. Africana Studies Honors Program changes: Students must have a
cumulative GPA of 3.25 in University courses of and 3.50 GPA in the
major to be able to enter the program and to remain in it. Also students
enrolled in the Honor Program will have to write a thesis which will be
worth 6 credits. The changes will appear in the 2008-2009 Bulletin.
3
Women’s Studies proposed LGBTQ Minor: UAC approved the proposed minor
but its name was cause of concern. The title is an acronym for Lesbian-Gay-
Bisexual-Transgender-Queer. Several members felt that the term Queer was
derogative and therefore it was not a good idea to have it in the name. We
requested an explanation from the Women Studies Department. Christine E. Bose,
Women's Studies and Sociology explained that the minor name is the above
acronym and not all the terms spelled out. She also explained that “Queer Studies
is now the most progressive term in this field. The term incorporates a broad
spectrum of sexual identities, including gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, but also
transgender and other identities as well. In essence, scholars have reclaimed the
word, once used disparagingly, to represent a new progressive approach. …
Currently "Queer" is the accepted terminology in academia that acts as an
umbrella term to encompass all sexual and gender identities that are
marginalized, not just lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ones. While in the
past, queer was used as a derogatory term, over the past few decades, it has been
reclaimed as a source of pride and resistance.”
A member still strongly opposed the use of Queer and not having the terms
spelled out. UAC voted to have the minor be named LGBTQ as the Department
of Women Studies proposed, without the terms spelled out and it passed by
majority vote. Then UAC proceeded then to vote on accepting the minor as
proposed by the Department of Women Studies, with the word Queer still in it.
A member was very much in opposition and requested a roll call vote. The result
of the voting was as follow:
8 Yes: Maria Brown, Sue Faerman, Sue Phillips, Bill Rainbolt, Karin
Reinhold, Jane Kessler, Nikki Kotary and Greg Stevens.
2 No’s: Chris Faugere and Dan Truman III with rights (see attached
email).
2 abstain: Ann Withington and Maria Moon.
Daniel Truchan III Rights from the voting according to Roberts Rules of
Order: “I am quite disappointed in this committee for not doing its job and
rushing this minor with out all the committees questions answered. This
committee is here to make sure that all of the different areas of academics are
looked after. Being a Research Center we must look at how all programs will
have an impact on the institution. Being that this minor is not being spelled out
shows that this Institution has something to hide and since the motion to spell it
out the words that form LGBTQ failed, I am very appalled to see this bill pushed
through with out the final question of whether or not the Women’s Study
department wanted to see it spelled out. This committee failed to do its job and
those who pushed it through should be ashamed of themselves and reexamine
why they are here.”
ULC (University Life Council), Joan Savitt, Chair. No report, although the
ULC subcommittees have been meeting and discussing student housing.
UPC (Univ. Planning & Policy Council), Diane Dewar, Chair. No report.
4
CAFFECoR (Committee on Academic Freedom, Freedom of Expression, and
Community Responsibility), Sanjay Goel, Chair. No report.
CERS (Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship), Zai Liang, Chair.
No report.
Discussion on: Women’s Studies proposed LGBTQ Minor: There was a
very lengthy discussion on this proposal. A question was directed to Interim
Vice President Herman on how the topic normally appears in the media. The
discussion centered on naming the minor and the media reaction. Interim Provost
Phillips suggested researching other institutions that have similar program
offerings, and if they use the word “queer,” what the results were with the press.
New Business:
UAC Chair Reinhold-Larsson reported that UAC approved the name change of
the Minor in International Perspectives to the Minor in International Studies.
There was discussion and it was agreed that there is no bill needed for this word
change in the name.
Report from Interim Vice President Catherine Herman: Vice President
Herman gave an overview and status report on the University Marketing and
Branding initiative.
Letter to Susan Phillips, Interim Provost:
The letter below was sent to Interim Provost Phillips from the Senate Executive
Committee. Dr. Phillips asked for suggestions from the group. It was suggested
that she and Interim President Philip go out to the residence halls, see classrooms,
and possibly have breakfast or lunch with students to find out what their views
are.
The subjects of VSA, freshman year experience and Project Renaissance were
mentioned and Dr. Phillips said she will look in to them before commenting. The
Middle States Evaluation topic came up and Dr. Phillips noted that Dean Faerman
will guide that review.
LETTER:
TO: Susan D. Phillips, Interim Provost
FROM: Senate Executive Committee
DATE: 22 January 2008
5
Congratulations on your appointment to Interim Provost at UAlbany. The Senate
Executive Committee is eager to work with you to improve the educational experience for
our students. The next SEC meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2008, at 3:30
pm, in UNH 306, and we hope very much that you will be able to attend.
In order to better prepare for this meeting, we would like to identify a few items that we
believe require prompt attention.
1. Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA).
Background: At the fall 2007 plenary meeting of the SUNY-wide University Faculty
Senate (UFS) held in Cortland, NY, it was learned that UAlbany, along with a few
other SUNY schools, has joined VSA. Except for one campus, none of the local
governance bodies had been consulted on this matter. SUNY Senators were
dismayed about this apparent breakdown in administration-governance
communications. The UFS passed a resolution to the effect that no SUNY school
should participate in VSA without full consultation with local faculty governance.
Despite the “voluntary” designation of the VSA, UAlbany governance, in particular,
has not been consulted at all on this matter by the Provost/Officer in Charge. Our
UFS Senator reported about VSA and the UFS resolution at the Dec. 17, 2007
Senate meeting, noting we were the only university center that agreed to participate.
Concerns were expressed about the vagueness and uncertainties about the
measuring of “learning outcomes” required by VSA, this being a very complex and
potentially controversial item. Bruce Szelest, who had been left in charge of VSA by
the departing Provost/Officer in Charge, stated at the same Senate meeting that
UAlbany would simply not participate in the measuring and reporting of learning
outcomes required by VSA. On the other hand, UAlbany’s participation in VSA is
clearly documented through a link that appears prominently on the UAlbany
homepage (under College Portrait). The last page of that link refers to learning
outcomes, and it also provides access to examples of learning outcomes at UAlbany.
By all appearances, UAlbany is thus participating fully in VSA.
Concerns: Since measuring and reporting learning outcomes are key components of
VSA, there may be negative repercussions when – following Bruce’s statement –
UAlbany will not post required test results and will thus be found in violation of
critical aspects of the VSA protocol. On the other hand, if no action is taken, it
appears that UAlbany will simply continue on track to engage in measuring and
reporting learning outcomes without any consultation with and approval by
governance, as is evidenced by the current UAlbany VSA webpages. Furthermore,
as it stands, UAlbany is in violation of the UFS resolution. One option would be for
UAlbany simply to withdraw from VSA pending full consultation with governance,
consistent with the UFS resolution. The matter will very likely come up at the Jan.
31–Feb. 2, 2008, UFS plenary meeting here at UAlbany, and it is important that our
UFS senators can appropriately represent UAlbany’s position.
2. Freshmen Year Experience (FYE):
In fall 2006 Undergraduate Studies offered 30 sections of a version of UNI 150
involving about 600 freshmen as “pilot” for a FYE program. The particular course
topic, and more generally, the whole concept of a FYE program, had not been
discussed and approved by governance. Based on largely inconclusive results of this
pilot, the office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies submitted a proposal
for a new course UFSP 101 Freshmen Seminar to the Interdisciplinary Studies
Committee (IDS) of UAC late in the 2007 spring semester. The 2006-07 IDS was
improperly constituted because it had only one teaching faculty member instead of
6
the required three. Upon the recommendation of this - largely administrative -
committee, UAC approved the course on May 8, 2007. In fall 2007, 43 sections of
UFSP 101 were offered, involving about 800 freshmen. Naturally we are concerned
that such a large program - involving about a third of this year’s freshmen class - is
being implemented without proper discussion and approval by the Senate.
Furthermore, in order to properly assess the merits of the program and the
expansion of the fall 2006 pilot, we would need relevant data on syllabi, exams,
enrollments, retention, and grades. One possible course of action could be to impose
a moratorium on further offerings of UFSP 101 (note that UFSP 101 is not yet listed
in the [online] bulletin) until such assessment has been completed, and until the
concept of a large-scale Freshmen Year Experience program has been properly
approved by the Senate and the (Interim) President.
3. Project Renaissance.
In spring 2007 a team of outside evaluators reviewed Project Renaissance, and their
report became available in early summer. We would appreciate an update on
specific actions that have been taken since then to address the concerns identified in
the report.
4. Middle States Evaluation
To date, the consultation with faculty governance expected by Middle States’
guidelines and described in our Faculty Bylaws (cf. Article I, section 2.5) regarding
this matter has not occurred. Our understanding is that the process should begin
very soon.
We look forward to discuss these items and other matters with you on January 28, 2008.
2.5 Faculty Participation in Advisory Groups Outside of Governance Bodies.
Administrators may choose to advance their leadership vision for the University
by constituting special committees and task forces, selecting individual faculty
members because of their experience or expertise. Ideally, such advisory groups
shall be constituted in consultation with the Governance Council of the University
Senate and lines of communication with relevant governance bodies shall be
enunciated. In any case, such groups do not represent the Faculty as a whole and
advice from such groups does not replace approval by or formal consultation with
the Faculty. Such groups may freely provide advice; however, for such groups to
be considered part of the formal consultative process, a majority of the faculty
members must either be appointed by, or their recommended appointment
approved by, the Senate Governance Council, as specified in Article 2, Section
5.5, and specific faculty members must be designated to regularly report to the
Senate. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate shall be consulted in the
composition of all major University level search committees and committees to
select honorary degree recipients.
MeetingAdjourned at 5:55p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jayne VanDenburgh, Recorder
7
