UNIVERSITY POLICY AND PLANNING COUNCIL
2016-17 CHAIR -CYNTHIA FOX
November 16, 2016
MEETING MINUTES
Present: S. Birge, M. Chen, J. Collins, C. Fox, S. Goel, M. Jerison, M. Leventhal, C.
Parker, K. Rethemeyer, D. Wharram (GSA), D. Wheeler, J. Van Voorst
Guests: Ann Marie Murray, Associate Provost for Program Development
Kathie Winchester, Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education
Approval of the Minutes from October 19, 2016
Minutes of the October 19" meeting were approved as amended with one abstention and
none opposed.
Interim Provost’s Report
Interim Provost Darrell Wheeler spoke about the reaction to the recent United States
Presidential Election. He thanked Rockefeller College for their leadership in conducting the
planned discussion afterwards. Interim Provost Wheeler addressed phone calls that have
been received by the President’s and Provost's offices from parents concerned over faculty
members having reportedly cancelled classes as a result of their reaction to the election
result. Interim Provost Wheeler is working with the deans to determine if any classes were
actually cancelled for this purpose and urged committee members to convey to colleagues
that cancelling classes is not appropriate. Interim Provost Wheeler noted that as a
university we value academic excellence and diversity, the inclusion of ideas and intellectual
rigor. Across the country there is a climate of unrest and people expressing themselves on
both sides of the political divide and we should be mindful that we have a responsibility to
continue to provide platforms for people to voice opinions as long as they are not harmful or
violent and do not promote threats.
Interim Provost Wheeler updated the committee on the continual work on the strategic
planning process and asked that committee members encourage colleagues to attend the
Concert of Ideas on December 9" and 10" where we all have an opportunity to shape the
direction of the university. Interim Provost Wheeler echoed Interim President Stellar’s
sentiments in previous meetings that the university will keep moving forward despite having
interim leadership and that he is doing everything he can to make sure that the university
still takes on its full capacity of operations to maintain strength as an academic body. This
includes meeting with deans regularly and discussing enrollment and budgets. Interim
Provost Wheeler discussed budget planning meetings with deans that would begin in the
spring and carry on through the summer rather than in the fall. This would include the
understanding that some decisions would be that not everyone would receive expanded
pots of money but rather need to live within the realities of the allocations that they have.
In the future, Interim Provost Wheeler would be open to receiving input on topics that would
be useful to report on to the committee.
Chair’s Report
Cynthia Fox updated the committee that the modifications to the L.O.I. for the MS in Digital
Forensics and also the modifications to the documents for the PHD in Electrical and
Computer Engineering were received, signed and moved forward. Also, the minutes and
agendas are now up to date on the UPPC website.
Chair Fox stated that the futuring papers for the strategic planning process are online and
invited the committee to comment on them and encouraged everyone to sign up for the
Concert of Ideas.
Chair Fox asked Jim Van Voorst, Vice President of Finance and Administration, to speak on
something that he had mentioned to her before the meeting began. Vice President Van
Voorst stated that the division of Finance and Administration (F&A) is going to have a review
performed under consultant Larry Goldstein who is very active with the National Association
of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and the Society for College and
University Planning (SCUP). He will come onto campus December 6" through December 9"
and meet with people to evaluate how the F&A is doing their work, policies, where they are
on the risk management spectrum, and where they can make changes from the perspective
of someone on the outside. Vice President Van Voorst asked Chair Fox to provide him with
names of faculty members from the University Senate and members of UPPC to meet with
Mr. Goldstein to give him an idea of how the campus perceives the way that F&A operates
and where improvement can be made. Mr. Goldstein will take short meetings (15 minutes)
with small groups—no more than 5-6 people at a time. Vice President Van Voorst stated that
Mr. Goldstein is aware that there are some things that cannot be changed. Mr. Goldstein
has done work at other SUNY schools in the past and is aware of the restrictions that exist
under certain state processes.
Jim Collins asked to clarify that Vice President Van Voorst is looking for people to give their
perception of F&A from their particular place in the university. Vice President Van Voorst
confirmed.
Sanjay Goel asked what Vice President Van Voorst hopes to achieve from this—if the
outcome would be revised processes, a revised compact process, or something else. Vice
President Van Voorst made the distinction that the compact process is not for the division of
F&A to change. If Mr. Goldstein picks up on feedback that people have on the compact
process, it would be up to Vice President Van Voorst to bring that feedback to the President
to discuss. F&A has many other functions that could be streamlined such as Purchasing,
Rapid Copy, etc. Associate Professor Goel asked if Vice President Van Voorst hopes to
achieve a macro level view, often for efficiency and cost cutting, or a micro level view, often
for process efficiency. Vice President Van Voorst responded that it would be a combination
of the two—more of an effectiveness point of view. It may need much more work but Mr.
Goldstein could point out an area where something could be done or where we are an
outlier.
Committee Reports
Facilities Subcommittee Update
No update. Chair of subcommittee, Sridar Chittur was not present.
Resource Analysis and Planning Subcommittee
Mitch Leventhal, chair of the subcommittee spoke. There was no update; there has not
been a meeting of the subcommittee since the last UPPC meeting. There is another meeting
scheduled for next Tuesday, November 22"4.
Old Business
UPPC role in Compact Planning
Chair Fox asked for clarification on the conclusion regarding UPPC’s role in the Compact
Planning process and what it means to be consulted before the final decisions are made.
She believed there had been discussion after the meeting was adjourned and that the
suggestion was that the University Senate make a presentation to the Compact Team about
their priorities. Vice President Van Voorst explained that that the process includes a time for
each dean and vice president to discuss with the Compact Team opportunities and
challenges facing their areas. This is done prior to decisions being made on compact
proposals. The Senate would be given the opportunity to provide their perception of
opportunities and challenges during the same time period.
Michael Jerison commented that this seems like an appropriate suggestion. Professor Collins
stated that the faculty perception right now is that the process is not transparent as
proposals are submitted and deans either pass it on or it’s never discussed again. This
suggestion could break down that perception and would get faculty into the process as it is
ongoing instead of being consulted after decisions are made.
Interim Provost Wheeler asked if Professor Collins also wants faculty to be involved in
evaluating the decisions after the decisions have been made. Professor Collins stated that
the idea is that UPPC would be involved in both ends. Vice President Van Voorst suggested
that he will change the document discussed in last month’s meeting to include UPPC
involvement in the earlier stage of the process and make no other changes. He will bring
this updated document back to the group for vote to avoid confusion. Vice President Van
Voorst asked how the group should be described in the document, faculty senate, UPPC, or
some other body. Professor Collins stated that UPPC would be named in the document, but
that more than just the people in the room would be consulted. Professor Goel asked if UPPC
would be discussing their priorities or involved in the final decisions. Interim Provost
Wheeler clarified that UPPC would not be involved in the decision making but would have a
seat at the table to make their case for their priorities.
Professor Goel asked about measuring, monitoring and metrics for compact funding
disbursed in previous years and compared it to the 2020 Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) process where funding was disbursed but goals may or may not have been met.
Interim Provost Wheeler explained his method of leadership. He is very connected to
outcomes-based and performance-based reviews. He believes in giving people the full
latitude to establish their own parameters but then holding them fully accountable to report
on how they achieve those parameters. At this point, Interim Provost Wheeler explained it is
not his intention to penalize areas where 2020 MOU parameters were not met, but it
provides the opportunity to look at what was proposed to begin the process of normalizing
review, evaluation and expectations. Receiving funds and making promises but not being
held accountable for meeting those promises is a poor foundation for the institution to move
forward. We are just getting into the first year of the funding for the compact plans. Part of
the role of UPPC is to hold accountability and get feedback on how we're doing on key
metrics in the proposals.
Vice President Van Voorst commented on the monitoring of proposals. As shown in the
charts at the last meeting, for the 2020 MOUs the campus put the money in the areas we
said that we were going to, meeting the commitment to New York State. Now we have to
assess the impact of that money. The benefits from some of those positions aren’t going to
be seen for two or three years out as programs are built. Some of the MOUs should have
shown results already. For the compact investments, the tracking is one level deeper. Vice
Presidents and Deans can go back to whoever was actually going to do the work and come
back periodically with what has been done. This process is being developed, as the funding
from first compact process was disbursed recently, starting July 1, 2016. The process will be
presented at the next Resources and Planning Subcommittee meeting.
New Business
Senate policy and procedures regarding departmental name changes and reorganizations
Chair Fox introduced the topic of what we may view as minor changes: department name
changes, departments splitting or merging, etc. There are a number of additional things
that happen behind the scenes that need to be taken into account when these things take
place. The Executive Committee of the Senate (SEC) suggested that UPPC develop a
document that would be a parallel document to the campus impact form that outlines what
questions that need to be asked in these situations and who on campus needs to be
informed and kept in the loop. Professor Collins added that a schedule would also be
discussed, for example proposals could be submitted at any time throughout the year, but
only implemented every six months or once a year. In addition, it is necessary to confirm
that faculty members are consulted on this process.
Kathie Winchester, Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education introduced herself and
explained her role in the implementation of department name changes and reorganizations
in her position as Assistant Dean and as staff support for the Undergraduate Academic
Council (UAC). Assistant Dean Winchester explained that she is responsible for maintaining
the PeopleSoft catalog which runs into scheduling, Budget, Human Resources and has huge
implications. When registering for a course the PeopleSoft catalog sets up the rules about
repeatability, number of credits, conflicts, etc. Assistant Dean Winchester explained that
she is responsible for transferring the changes that come in to the catalog. In her role,
Assistant Dean Winchester has been attending Senate meetings and occasionally when
department name changes or reorganizations come up, there is question as to how the
Senate should be consulted and she would like to see procedures captured in writing. In the
seemingly minor changes made by the School of Business separating ITM into two
departments and the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences combining Information
Studies and Informatics into one department, there are many steps and over twenty people
involved. The issue is not so much the amount of labor involved, but the timing of the
changes. The Undergraduate Bulletin is an official record of the policies that were in place
for degree requirements and is a published, binding document. Nothing significant about a
major should be changed mid-year.
Interim Provost Wheeler summarized that we’re looking for a document that units can use as
a reference for what needs to be done and what the timeframe would be when those units
are contemplating any type of change.
Chair Fox asked if we need a subgroup to create this document. Assistant Dean Winchester
volunteered to represent the Academic Organization working group once the UPPC
subcommittee has the document articulated. Chair Fox and Professor Collins also
volunteered themselves to the subcommittee. Professor Collins stated that in consultation
with UAC, he would find out some information to bring suggestions back to UPPC.
The lack of an updated, consistent University Handbook (also referred to as the Faculty
Handbook) that resides on the Senate webpage was discussed. This document is different
from the “Senate Handbook” that is also available on the Senate website, and is also
outdated. Updating these documents will be a future talking point of both UPPC and the
University Senate.
CNSE Resolution
Michael Jerison chair of the Senate Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship (CERS)
presented his findings from looking into the issues leading up to the arraignment of Alain
Kaloyeros, former President and Founder of SUNY Polytechnic Institute. Professor Jerison
stated there could be a potential resolution that could come from UPPC or the Senate in
regards to policy going forward, with the intention of transparency and prevention of similar
issues occurring at the University at Albany, particularly considering the former ties between
Former President Kaloyeros and the University at Albany and the former College of
Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE).
Professor Jerison’s suggestions were twofold. First, it was proposed that the University at
Albany would support a proposal by UUP to open its books to the public as far as the
Research Foundation (RF) and other foundations associated with the College of Nanoscale
Science and Engineering (CNSE). The amount of money that the University at Albany and
New York State spent in supporting the Nanoscience project could be evaluated. Were there
peer reviews? Were there issues with education output? Second, it was proposed that
different types of grants be treated differently. Research productivity without peer review,
without output or competitive allocation/receiving grants would be treated differently than
research that is a service done for a fee. Professor Collins stated that this proposal could
benefit from a conversation with the Counsel on Research and asked that Professor Jerison
provide something in writing. Professor Collins stated that he would do some digging and
find out what the state of a related UUP resolution and if the Research Foundation is already
subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
Vice President Van Voorst noted that the University at Albany or its affiliates have not been
named or implicated in any of the improprieties that have been alleged. The allegations had
to do with grants that the University at Albany had nothing to do with. In addition, Vice
President Van Voorst stated that the classification of grants is determined by the Research
Foundation.
Chair Fox asked if when the separation of CNSE and the University at Albany occurred if the
University at Albany got any sort of compensation for the faculty lines that went to SUNY
Polytechnic with the separation of CNSE. Vice President Van Voorst replied that there was
no dollar amount paid to the University at Albany. The functions that went to SUNY
Polytechnic took their allocations and tuition revenue with them. There was an MOU
between the University at Albany and SUNY Polytechnic that laid out the state dollars,
research dollars, IFR dollars, property, equipment, etc. that went to SUNY Polytechnic.
Professor Collins asked, in clarification, that there is a document that states the point of and
conditions of the separation of the University at Albany and CNSE. Vice President Van
Voorst confirmed this, stating that there is an MOU document that was the basis for the
movement of funds in the SUNY budget.
Karl Rethemeyer, Interim Dean of Rockefeller College, made the point that he has been
involved with many grants that are not peer-reviewed/competitive but they help to fund
students, data and other important things. He would push back on the idea of treating non-
traditional research dollars as a second class of research.
Interim Provost Wheeler suggested that the committee may find it worthwhile to look into
what is already being done at the college and school level to assess research. In addition,
Interim Provost Wheeler pointed out that the types of grants may have limitations based on
discipline and there is meaning and significant potential within those disciplines in non-
traditional grants. In addition, it must be considered that statements assessing research
that are too far outside of the unit level may have serious implications when trying to
reconcile research in the tenure and promotion process.
Interim Provost Wheeler was able to pull up an email he had mentioned earlier regarding the
faculty handbook and the discussion began again about what exactly is out there and who is
responsible for maintaining it. Chair Fox was not sure that it should be the Senate’s role to
oversee that document as there are policies on many different items that do not involve the
Senate. Professor Collins stated that usually this type of document is not maintained by the
Senate and Interim Provost Wheeler stated that it probably should not be maintained by the
Senate. Professor Collins asked that it be put on the agenda for next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:48PM.
