2011-2012 University Senate
Thursday, May 31, 2012
2:00 pm
Campus Center Assembly Hall
Andi Lyons, Vice-Chair
Present:
Raysa Capellan, Thomas Devlin, Cynthia Fox, Jennifer Greiman, Yenisel Gulatee, Jean Guyon,
Janell Hobson, Donald Keenan, Alice Krause, David Lewis, Andi Lyons, Candace Merbler,
Bruce Miroff, Nancy Newman, Gregory Nowell, John Schmidt, Charles Scholes, Leonard Slade,
Jr., Joette Stefl-Mabry, Tim Stephen, Christine Wagner, David Wills
Guests:
Eloise Briere, Elana Gordis, Michael Kernan, Kir Kuiken, Deborah LaFond, Carolyn
MacDonald, Tamra Minor, Aran Mull, John Pipkin, Joan Savitt, Paul Stasi, Timothy Sergay,
Mark Wolfe
The meeting convened at 2:11 pm.
Due to the lack of a quorum, GOV Chair Lyons asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion was made and
seconded and the meeting adjourned at 2:13 pm. The body changed to a committee of the whole and notes were
made of the following discussion that took place.
Report on Resolution 1112-03R:
Senator Wills said he would like the Senate to address the report in the coming fall semester. He thanked those
who attended today and knew it would be a risk to assemble a quorum given the time of year. Senator Wills felt
it was important for the Senate to address the matter in the current session since it has been ongoing since
October of 2010. He was surprised by what had taken place in the spring of 2011 and disappointed in the
Senate’s silence all through the 2011 fall semester. As a result he proposed the resolution that was passed
earlier this spring in an attempt to complete the cycle by addressing the question this year of potential violations
of governance procedures. He was concerned that the report was late and released in an untimely fashion on the
day of the last Senate meeting. Senator Wills was aware that his colleagues on GOV worked hard and he
thanked them for their effort. But he felt the report did not produce any leverage and would like to have it on
the agenda in the fall because the question requires resolution. He said on a number of occasions the matter had
been referred to as one of the past but to him it is a matter of the present since it holds concerns for now and the
future. He expressed concerns about decisions in the future that would not be made without following the spirit
of the Bylaws. Senator Wills said the decisions made concerning program deactivations require an active and
involved faculty to discuss such matters. It is important to understand what took place, how matters can be
handled differently in the future and to obtain the administration’s understanding on the matter.
Senator Wills said if a quorum had been present he would have moved that the President was in violation of the
Bylaws and felt the evidence points to the fact that there was no discussion as required by Section 2.2.2 at the
earliest possible occasion. The report does not state the date the deactivations were filed with SUNY Central.
He added that if the decision was made before the Senate was asked to provide its input, to him that is a
violation. The fact that the president failed to provide a detailed explanation in writing for rejecting the faculty
recommendations is a violation of Section 2.2.1. Senator Wills would like the Senate to vote on those two
points and if the vote favors that there were violations, the Senate would call on the president to reverse the
decision as a logical step in the process. Chair Lyons pointed out that there is nothing in the Bylaws requiring
the Senate Chair to request the president to act. Senator Wills said he understands that it would not mean the
president would change anything but the Senate should be able to express that it is the will of the Senate and the
actions it wants the president to take. Chair Lyons said the administration was within their rights to do what
they did and the task force did as asked in making that determination. Senator Wills pointed out the report
indicates there was a division among committee members and the task force suggests that certain information
was not provided. The basis of the decisions on the president’s behalf was unclear. The report is ambivalent on
the matter, clearly suggesting there was a division amongst task force members. Senate members and guests
debated the report.
Senator Greiman: There does not seem to be a consensus on the questions of violation of the Bylaws.
Chair Lyons: The committee did not feel the term violations was a good framework.
Senator Wills: What would be the proper term? Could you say the Bylaws were respected or not? There are a
number of people who feel violation is the proper word.
Senator Stefl-Mabry: The task force did not feel that the actions of the president rose to the level of violations.
There were miscommunications but did not see a smoking gun or feel there was a mapped out plan to ignore the
Senate and the faculty.
Senator Wills: The report does not say the task force concluded there was no violation so it remains an open
question.
Senator Fox: Part of the issue of violations is there are people who feel the Senate has no standing because it is
only advisory and that an advisory body cannot be violated. This part of the debate is fundamental as a senator
in understanding how things work and has created a divide among senators about what the Senate’s role should
be. As a member of the task force she looked not only at possible violations of the administration but looked
seriously at how the Senate conducts business because it seems the Senate does not want to be an advocate of
faculty concerns. It seems the Senate wants to defer that the administration has a right to make decisions
unilaterally.
CERS Chair MacDonald: There are also a number of people who do not understand the difference between
advice and the requirement on which advice is taken. At some point the president has a right to say, yes he
hears you but has made a different decision. She thinks we need to say what we are trying to accomplish,
perhaps an acknowledgement that something went wrong in the past. Perhaps reinvigorate those programs or
produce a proposal of what we want to happen, and if feasible make it happen. There is a mechanism in the
SUNY 2020 for such proposals. Rather than spending a lot of time on what has happened, at some point we
have to live with the reality and concentrate on what we need to do in the future. If we propose that some of the
SUNY 2020 money be put in the deactivated programs, the administration would find this more acceptable
instead saying they were wrong.
Senator Wills: One does not exclude the other and we need to determine what mistakes were made so they can
be avoided in the future.
Senator Newman: Is there any way for faculty to have input into the 2020 proposal:
Chair MacDonald: There are unit proposals for spending the money.
Senator Malatesta: Since those (deactivated) areas still exist they can still make proposals.
A senator said we had no input at all into SUNY 2020 and impedes any hope of that.
Another senator referred to an email that was received at the end of the semester that 47 new hires were to be
made based on the results of SUNY 2020 and none were in the areas of humanities. There is no evidence that
the plan had been approved.
Senator Greiman: With the new hire lines, the Senate needs to be assured that the president and administration
can be held accountable. If we have a new president coming in, they should be welcomed with the critique of a
past president and realize there will be close scrutiny by the Senate and faculty.
The statement was made that in the end it comes down to what the Senate is and why people would want to
attend meetings of a body that has no significance. The Senate needs to assert that it is a body that has some
meaning.
Senator Wills said he would be perfectly happy for the Senate to say there was a violation and leave it at that.
There has to be closure and the Senate needs to vote on whether there was a violation or not.
Senator Schmidt: We need to untie the term violations from the general theme of not liking that programs were
deactivated. There was no smoking gun as the task force looked through the Bylaws. We need to detach from
referring to violations in order to move on.
Senator Wills: Why in all of those documents was there no public discussion of those programs:
Senator Schmidt: It was never the intention of the BAGs to actually select the units that would be terminated.
Chair Lyons: To do so would have been a violation of the unions since we don’t have the authority to terminate
employees.
Senator Wills: He interprets the Bylaws as reading there needs to be discussion when areas are reorganized.
Senator Schmidt: The administration proposed to the Senate suspension of admissions in October of 2010, not
deactivations.
Senator Wills: Believes it was deactivations.
Chair Lyons: The date deactivations took effect and the date they were filed are different.
Senator Merbler: Thinks it would be helpful to know what date the paperwork was filed. She served on GOV
when the announcement went out and every council was asked to provide input. In each response, the councils
said they did not agree with the president. There has been much agitation since that time and rightfully so. But
the Senate needs to agree on what to put forward.
A senator commented it is crucial to determine what governance means to the University at Albany—is the
Senate a body that has teeth? Can both the issue of faculty governance and the nature of the decision on this
particular issue be separated?
Senator Schmidt: The Senate is described in both the Bylaws and Charter as being advisory. We can state at
every meeting that we would like to have these programs reinstated, that’s how to operate going forward.
Senator Schmidt was on the subcommittee for CARE which submitted a well thought out and prepared plan for
administrative reviews. The plan was threatened by the president to be vetoed. It appears the administration
was viewing this through the lens of a faculty revolt on the deactivations. These decisions are poisoning the
faculty/administrative relations. The SUNY Senate has signed off on administrative reviews and the other
SUNY Centers are doing administrative evaluations. We are way behind in this respect and the bill should have
sailed through. The concept also has support from Middle States.
Senator Newman referred to the issue on the Misconduct Policy where the decision to initiate an inquiry is now
an administrative decision which used to rest the Vice President for Research or the CERS Chair. Chair
MacDonald said it was her understanding that University Counsel wanted it that way.
Senator Greiman: The procedures have stirred up the environment. We need to have a clear statement that
these procedures were wrongfully taken and that this is not the way to proceed in the future.
Senator Malatesta: The report clearly states that we strongly suggest “the administration must remain mindful
of the need to consult with the Senate”. We’ve passed resolutions and strong feelings have been expressed at
every meeting. To hold other proposals hostage that your colleagues have worked on is counter-productive.
Senator Wills: What is the mechanism for having this discussed in the fall?
Chair Lyons: A motion needs to be presented to the SEC. There are a number of resolutions on the books but
they have little weight and gauge the sentiments of the faculty about certain issues. A motion needs to be
presented on which the Senate can make a decision. Asks Senator Wills if he is making a motion to reactivate
all deactivated programs and present for a vote.
A suggestion is made for keeping the motion active and placing a generic motion on each agenda.
Chair Lyons: If it is approved then the option for the president is to sign off or veto.
Senator Miroff: This is not just a matter of the Senate but a matter of the faculty. We need a clear statement
that the Senate is representative of the faculty. This is not just Senate opposition; it’s from the faculty as well.
We want to express our unhappiness and give this as strong a voice as possible.
Chair Lyons: Hearing that people are unhappy with the letter and spirit of consultation. The task force found
there was a lot of consultation but argued it was not the right kind. When looking at the different documents we
saw that the president and provost consulted with many people. If the Senate is trying to convince the
administration they should treat the Senate as a responsible body, we should not admonish them for talking to
other people.
Question: How is a motion introduced?
Chair Lyons: A notification is sent to the SEC for its review to make sure it is in the proper form.
Senator Malatesta: If the proposal is for reactivation, it will need to go to UPPC and other councils as well. We
want to make sure it is vetted through the proper councils before sending it to the Senate floor. UPPC will have
to consider the resources involved.
Senator Newman: Asked for clarification about resource issues—are we still in a state of emergency. Said she
understand that 20 hires have been made so why haven’t there been 20 hires in the areas that were deactivated?
Why weren’t those areas priorities? How has the financial situation changed to allow the president and provost
to make those decisions?
Senator Merbler: The president can decide not to address those areas. She asked everyone to consider the
number of positions that have been lost since 2008. Some of the hires are to backfill areas that lost people and
there could be a decision of the dean not to backfill those areas.
Senator Nowell: It sounds like a motion asking to have programs restored needs to go to the Senate. We didn’t
have the leadership regarding what was needed to keep the university going. He referred to an incident in
California where the president resigned instead of cutting programs. That’s what administrators do—commit to
the idea of a university and making it work.
Senator Merbler: President Philip was constantly advocating with our elected officials. We have a
dysfunctional legislature that does not support higher education. The president was at the capitol almost
weekly, sometimes twice a week.
Professor Winn: Why is the Senate responsible for finding funding for programs?
Chair Lyons: It is the charge per the Charter for UPPC to do so.
Senator Malatesta: We need to know how or have plans about what resources will be affected. Everything the
Senate considers has connections to other things.
Senator Wills: When the president decided to cut these programs he should have gone to UPPC for feedback
from them. The task force was very explicit that BAGs do no replace normal governance procedures.
Senator Malatesta: We either accept how governance works or bring a motion to the Senate to break the
impasse.
Senator Miroff: There should be a discussion before terminating programs that are key to the University at
Albany.
Chair Lyons: Suspects that if the administration had SUNY 2020 hindsight things would have been done
differently but can’t imagine that any decision would have been viewed as a good decision.
Professor Winn: Addressed Chair Lyons that she is forever defending this decision which is troubling to the rest
of us. If there had been a normal conversation from the administration do you think they should have at least
consulted with the faculty in the affected programs and come up with some other conclusion and solution. Not
asking for another solution is the most egregious mistake. We did not learn about it until it was being
announced.
Chair Lyons: Resented fact that some faculty have put her in a position to defend the process where she was
losing her job. Since she was on BAG, she understood why the decision was being made. Given the fact that
we were down faculty but not students, the situation couldn’t be fixed and Theatre was cut. Chair Lyons is not
happy about it but is trying to fight back and rebuild the department.
Professor Winn: They didn’t have the decency to contact or give us an opportunity to retire voluntarily. There
was no consultation with the people who would be fired.
There was a review of events with the CAS Dean.
Other questions and comments on process going forward:
Suggest that any motion include a time limit to preserve legal rights.
Is there a state law authorizing some procedure for each campus?
There is a lot of construction on campus. Senator Merbler responded that construction is funded with
capital money and is not transferable for personnel services.
There should be cost accounting for all programs.
Would strongly encourage that the Senate make a statement regarding the effect faculty governance will
have on tenure; if not could subvert the reasons for our existence.
A discussion ensued regarding the structure of the Senate agenda and the prioritization of items. Senator
Malatesta said items coming from the councils should get priority.
Senator Miroff: A lot of things that people want to discuss don’t get discussed. There could be an on-line
procedure to send legislation. If there are no objections consider the items approved. There are lots of ways to
streamline the process on-line. People are very busy and there is a feeling that a lot of time is wasted going
over council reports
Chair Lyons: There are parliamentary procedures to accomplish some of that and there are procedures to move
controversial items to the front of the agenda.
Senator Nowell: Suggests a caucus forum. Appreciated today’s meeting and the honest discussion.
The discussion ended at approximately 4:00 pm.
