Senate Secretary Christian Poehlmann
Reports Submitted for September 25, 2017 Senate:
UNIVERSITY SENATE CHAIR’S REPORT – Karin Reinhold
I. Informational
During May Chair Collins, Vice Chair Reinhold and Secretary Poehlman organized the
election of chairs for the councils and standing committees for 2017-18.
In June Vice Chair Reinhold a) held a Senate structure meeting with incoming Vice Chair
Mower and Secretary Poehlman, b) participated in record keeping for council meetings
with senate leaders and IT Chris Moore with a recommendation that each council should
have a group drive for the council records, and c) participated in a Senate and UUP
leaders on increased participation of contingent faculty, increase in faculty workload and
assessment of deans.
July 11th Campus Governance Leaders (CGL) meeting (Chair Collins, Past Chair
Cynthia Fox, Vice Chair Reinhold, incoming Vice Chair Mower and interim Provost
Darrell Wheeler and Chief of staff Szelest) addressed the transition of leadership, the
assessment of academic units and website.
July 24th CGL meeting with the President-Elect Havidán Rodrigues addressed the
shared governance culture of our university.
July 26th Website meeting with JD Hyde and Angela D’Atri. Vice Chair Reinhold was
requested graphs for shared governance and content input for the different councils.
Tue Aug 1st & 8th Vice Chair Reinhold met with incoming Vice Chair Mower to plan the
elections’ calendar.
Thr Aug 10th Scott Bridges gave E. Lopez and Vice Chair Reinhold a tour of the new
Campus Center facilities, including the new Board room where Senate meetings will be
held once the room is ready.
Wed Aug 22th Senate leadership discussed the future visit of SUNY Senate President
Gwen Kay and shared governance graphs to be displayed in the new website. Gwen
made us aware that the announcement for Distinguished Professorships has been
released, PIF funds (approved by chancellor and CFO) would be released Oct 15,
promote and consider presenting at and/or attending the 2017 SUNY Diversity
Conference: Engaging Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity in the Classroom, Campus and
Community, 29 Nov - 1 Dec.
Wed Aug 23rd CGL meeting addressed the next steps of the Strategic planning process.
President Rodriguez will review and set forth his vision for the university during the Fall.
The assessment of academic units is underway. The Assessment Advisory Committee
has been formed an it includes 3 representatives of the Senate. We continue to request
the development of a process for assessment of Deans.
Fri Aug 25th Routing proposals meeting with UPPC Chair Collins, Vice Dean for
Graduate Education Bartow (OGE), Assistant Dean Undergraduate Education K.
Winchester and C. Lavalle (UNE), and Associate Provost A.M. Murray.
New programs procedures are clearly documented and procedures for routing changes
to programs were clarified. Timetables for proposal evaluation were discussed, to ensure
programs receive timely evaluation. It was stressed the need for all involved parties to
maintain communication.
Vice Chair Reinhold attended the Convocation. Interim President Stellar and President
Elect Rodriguez welcomed the class of 2021, with 4000 students (including transfers).
Wed Aug 30th Senate leaders met with consultant from the AASCU-Penson Center for
Professional Development and Dr. Charles Bantz, former Chancellor of Indiana
University-Purdue University Indianapolis. We discuss items from which the culture of
the university will be inferred.
Vice Chair Reinhold and McNutt, chair of CPCA, had meetings and conversations during
the summer months regarding the composition of CPCA which needed to be updated
after the charter amendment in the composition of CPCA.
Chair Collins and Vice Chair Reinhold run a petition of behalf of contingent faculty to
increase contingent faculty representation in the Senate. The petition was distributed to
the Senate and was signed by 70 faculty and staff, which included 12 senators.
During the week of Aug 28th, Chair Reinhold had conversations about the Global
Distinction proposal with Dean and Vice Provost J. Altarriba, Assistant Dean
Undergraduate Education K. Winchester, Chairs of UAC K. Kiorpes & C. Smith, Dean
and Vice Provost, International Education H. Charles & Director of Global Academic
Programs A. Richie, and Chair of UPPC C. Fox. The proposal was sent to UPPC for
consideration.
SEC meeting of September 11th:
The President Havidán Rodríguez addressed the SEC in his first day in office and
asked how do we move collectively and collaboratively forward making UAlbany
stronger, with passion, engagement and enthusiasm in the 4 key areas: teaching,
research, service and community engagement?
Provost Jim Stellar updated us on the work of the implementation groups on
Contingent Concerns and Graduate Students Concerns. Current reports are not
available, but he expected them soon. He also addressed the perceived negative
impact on CAS due to the creation of the new schools. He explained that this is
largely a myth and that enrolments in the new schools surpassed expectations. He
cited the donation of 4Million for the School of Engineering. Stellar urged us to find
possible synergies between CAS disciplines and the new schools and find
projects/programs among schools. Some of this is already happening with the
Global Distinction proposal.
When asked about the situation with DACA, Stellar stressed that UAlbany, the whole
SUNY system and the State are all strongly in favor of the affected students and are
doing all that they can to support them. He estimated that UAlbany has between 20-
50 DACA students and added: “We don’t know exactly because we do not ask”. If you
know students in need of assistance, direct them to the Student CARE Services
Program.
This year the Senate should look into the issue of having UAlbany better
represented within the SUNY-wide Senate which works in many of the same issues
we do. We should try to make the SUNY-state wide Senate be relevant to UAlbany.
We should work on better engaging undergraduate students in the work of the
Senate. It was recommended the creation of a 1 credit Institutional Leadership
course that undergraduates can take for credit if they serve on the Senate. There
already exists one at the graduate level. We should look into whether graduate
students senators can take the course for credit while serving in the Senate.
It was recommended that each council cost-out the work of its council and
subcommittees. This would serve as a way to estimate the value of the work done in
councils and standing committees. This should be done every 4-5 years.
The chair of CPCA recommended that UAlbany should encourage more women
faculty to consider promotion onto full professorship and that the policies for tenure
and promotion should be re-examined to have clearer and more consistent sets of
standards.
Vice Provost for Administration Szelest recommended reaching out to Ann Marie
Murray of the Provost’s Office regarding her work with the archivist to establish a
the adoption of a proper nomenclature for naming files for files that will be shared
by the council/standing committees groups.
SEC voted to support the Resolution 1718-01R: Incorporating part-time and contingent
faculty in the university Senate.
On Sept 14th Chair Reinhold met with Patricia Keyes, Virginia Yonkers and Joe Creamer
regarding representation of contingent faculty. It was recommended to implement the
voting campaign for amendment to the bylaws 1617BA01 (rights of contingent faculty to
vote for their own representative) early in the Fall semester and to have an extended
period of voting for a chance of achieving quorum.
II. Actions taken
Appointments of Senate representatives to the Assessment Advisory Committee:
Penny NG from CAA, Ilka Kressner from GOV & Joette Stefl-Mabry from UPPC.
Global Distinction proposal was sent to UPPC.
Resolution 1718-01R: Incorporating part-time and contingent faculty in the
university senate, was added to the Senate agenda.
III. Recommendations for actions
Council and standing committee’s chairs review the shared governance website
page for their council/standing committee, become familiar with posting calendar,
minutes and agenda on the website & prepare news and updates as appropriate.
Explore the adoption of a proper nomenclature for naming files for files that
will be shared by the council/standing committees groups.
Explore cost-out the work of each council and subcommittees.
Explore measures for increase participation of undergraduate and graduate
students in the Senate.
Encourage participation of UAlbany members in the SUNY-wide Senate.
Re-introduce Bylaws Amendment 1617BA01, Right of contingent faculty to vote
for their own representative, early in the Fall semester and install an extended
period of voting to have enough time to achieving quorum.
IV. Announcements
SUNY Senate President Gwen Kay will visit SEC on Oct 2nd and the Senate on
Oct 16th.
Vacancies. Please send nomination to Vice Chair Mower for the following
vacancies:
o
Senate representative to the UAS Board of Directors.
o
Campus Recreation Advisory Board Vacancy
o
School of Business representative in UAC
2017 SUNY Diversity Conference: Engaging Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity in
the Classroom, Campus and Community, 29 Nov - 1 Dec.
SUNY Undergraduate Research Symposium 2018: Friday, April 20 at
Oneonta, and Saturday, April 21 at Monroe County Community College. UFS
supports this opportunity for students across the SUNY system to come
together and display, talk about, demonstrate and/or perform their research
and scholarly activity.
V. Three Things for all Senators
IMPORTANT: In your next departmental faculty meeting, be an advocate in
support of the Amendment to the Bylaws 1617BA01 Right of contingent faculty
to vote for their own representative.
The president requests questions from faculty and students. Encourage your
colleagues to submit questions for the President that can be addressed in
upcoming Senate meetings.
Senate FAQ with a condense summary of Robert’s Rules:
http://www.albany.edu/senate/index.htm Select: University Senate FAQs
for Senators
OTHER REPORTS
UFS (University Faculty Senate) – Diane Hamilton, Walter Little & Latonia
Spencer, SUNY Senators
Walter Little is attended the UFS planning meeting in Syracuse September
14th and 15th and Friday.
GSA (Graduate Student Association) – Dawn Wharram, Lead Senator
Nothing reported
SA (Student Association) –
Jerlisa Fontaine, Student Association President
Nothing to report
COUNCIL/COMMITTEE CHAIRS’ REPORTS:
CAA (Council on Academic Assessment) – Alifair Skebe, Chair
Nothing reported
CAFFECoR (Committee on Academic Freedom, Freedom of Expression, and
Community Responsibility) –Carol Jewell, Chair
CAFFECoR will meet for the first time this semester on September 27,
2017.
CERS (Committee on Ethics in Research and Scholarship) – Michael Jerison,
Chair
Professors Marina Petrukhina, chemistry, and Richard Goldstein,
mathematics, say they are willing to be CERS members. CERS is expected
to meet before 9/25 to elect a chair.
COR (Council on Research) – Robert Rosenswig, Chair
The first meeting will be on Sept 18th.
CPCA (Council on Promotions and Continuing Appointments) Louise-Anne
McNutt, Chair
Summary for Academic Year 2016-2017
The Council reviewed 31 applications: 17 for promotion to associate
professor and continuation (i.e., tenure), 3 for continuation at the associate
professor level, and 11 for promotion to full professor. In the interest of
confidentiality, individual applications are not discussed in this report.
Rather, this report provides insights regarding policy, procedure, and
process issues that arose as Council members reviewed dossiers, deliberated,
and wrote recommendations.
The Council members’ diverse areas of expertise encouraged robust
discussions and, occasionally, resulted in a lack of consensus. This document
raises the major issues discussed over the year. This is not a consensus
document, rather issues raised by one or more members are included so that
diverse perspectives can inform future discussions. For complex issues such
as teaching evaluation and selection of external reviewers of scholarship, we
recommend an ad-hoc committee be charged with careful deliberation and
recommendations for updating the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure
Review.
Amend Charter: Increase number of CPCA
members
The service commitment on CPCA averaged approximately 150 hours, per
member, during the past academic year, which is excessive for faculty
members with multiple service responsibilities. Given the planned growth of
the University, the expected increase in faculty hiring will result in a larger
workload for the CPCA in coming years. On April 6, 2017, the Council held
an open meeting to review multiple options to address the service burden.
After considering several different options, the Council concluded the
number of dossiers reviewed by members should be reduced by increasing
the number of Teaching Faculty serving on the Council and by removing the
requirement that all dossiers be reviewed by every Council member. The
College of Arts and Sciences’ Tenure and Promotion Committee has an
existing procedure for assignment of dossiers, which was recommended as a
model for the CPCA. Senate bill 1617-02A to amend the Charter was passed
on May 8, 2017.
The primary changes in the Charter are:
Prior Amendment
Number of members
9-13 members
14-22 members
Quorum
Majority (6-7 members)
7 members
Senators
4 members
3 members
Full professors
No requirement
At least half
Dossier review assignment
Full Council
7 members (minimum)
1 Senator
4 Full Professors
Support Staffing
Historically, the Office of the Provost has provided support staff for the
Council. The support is in the form of collecting, formatting, and distributing
the cases; scheduling the Council meetings and securing meeting locations;
communicating with the Council members, candidates, and
department/college staff; taking notes of the discussion at the meetings;
drafting the Council’s recommendation for each case; distributing the draft
recommendations to the Council members and making revisions; and
distributing the final recommendations to the candidates for their review and
response. This substantial set of duties, coupled with the large number of
cases reviewed on a weekly or biweekly basis, has contributed to a delay in
advancing the cases to the next level of review. Over the summer, the CPCA
Chair and Provost Office discussed this issue and developed a plan to
improve the timeliness of the process. The new plan needs to be carefully
monitored and adjusted where needed.
• New plan for 2017-2018: The CPCA member presenting a dossier for
discussion will complete, in advance, a template-formatted collection
of key elements of the case. In tenure cases, an Associate/Assistant
Provost or professional staff member will take minutes at the meeting
and an Associate/Assistant Provost will use the notes and template-
formatted collection of case highlights to draft the case summary. The
summary (recommendation) will then be reviewed by CPCA voting
members in attendance, edited if needed, and approved.
o
The expectation is that the recommendation will be available for
review, revision and approval within one week of the meeting.
Recommendation: Review the timeline during Fall 2017 and modify if
needed.
CPCA member reviewed for promotion
Currently, a CPCA member may be reviewed for promotion to full professor.
However, this situationn is uncomfortable for all and potentially disruptive to
the Council’s unbiased functioning.
Recommendation: Modify the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review to
specifically exclude current CPCA members from candidacy for promotion.
Review of late and incomplete dossiers
A recurrent problem is late and incomplete dossiers. Central to this issue is
the conflict between who controls the timeline for processing the dossier
(department/school/college) and who is most harmed by enforcing deadlines
and completeness (candidate). When crucial information was found to be
missing, the case was tabled and a request for information was obtained.
However, when no crucial information was missing, the case was reviewed but
submission to the Provost was delayed until the dossier was complete.
Recommendation: Encourage the Provost’s Office to make more explicit
the individuals (i.e., Department Chair, School/College P&C Chair, Dean)
responsible for the timely completion of the dossier and closely
coordinate both the movement and completeness of dossiers.
Promotion and Continuation Dossier Management System (Interfolio)
Interfolio, a computer system to administratively manage dossiers, has
been selected by the University and is expected to be implemented by Fall
2017. The system was reviewed by the incoming and outgoing CPCA
Chairs and other stakeholders on campus. Interfolio is utilized by many
major universities; the basic product has core functions that will be useful
for our campus. However, a few additional features are needed to meet our
goals (e.g., reduce administrative processing time) and adhere to P&C
procedures (e.g., provide stepwise access to the file by the candidate).
Recommendation: Ask a couple of current or former CPCA members to
evaluate the system. Specifically,
• Review and verify Interfolio maintains both the spirit and written
policies of the P&C guidelines; suggest modifications where needed.
• Review the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review to identify
opportunities using Interfolio that might facilitate a more efficient
review.
o
Provide suggested page lengths for internal letters, including
letters from Chairs, Deans, and subcommittees.
o
Identify opportunities to reduce staff, faculty and administrator
time while maintaining the integrity of the P&C process.
• Note: This recommendation is specific to CPCA. Many other
stakeholders also will be reviewing the system during initial
implementation.
SUNY 2020 UAlbany Impact Faculty Hires
In early January 2012, the Provost called for NY SUNY 2020 UAlbany
Impact proposals for funding under the Governor’s and Chancellor’s NY
SUNY 2020 initiative. The key requirement for funding was that proposals
show that any faculty appointment made under this plan resulted in
increased enrollment and/or increased external and graduate student
support. Specifically, the guidelines stipulated,
“Given the critical nature of enrollment and extramural funds to the
overall UAlbany 2020 plan, careful attention will be given to the
outcomes of hiring during the five years of the plan. An evaluation
of this will begin toward the end of “year 2” following initial hiring,
using the metrics outlined in the successful proposal. The central
funding for hiring plans made under the NY SUNY 2020 UAlbany
Impact program for whom expected external funding and/or
instructional responsibilities (of the individual hire and of the unit)
are unmet will be removed. Continued employment for those hired will
need to be funded by unit resources. The same will be true if the academic
unit overall instructional and/or external funding pattern declines (NY
SUNY 2020 UAlbany Impact Ground Rules and Request for Proposals for
new Faculty, p1).”
In spring 2017, the first tenure cases associated with NY SUNY 2020
UAlbany Impact faculty hires came before the CPCA for review. The
question the CPCA debated was whether these particular 2020 UAlbany
Impact faculty should be held to additional standards of performance?
Should the faculty being evaluated for tenure also show that the funding
requirements were met as a requirement for tenure? Alternatively, did the
department or school need to show that the requirements were met or if
not, that they could fund this additional faculty resource themselves. There
is no clear guidance for the CPCA concerning how to evaluate these tenure
cases.
Recommendation: The Provost should ascertain who is tracking the
performance requirements of the NY SUNY 2020 UAlbany Impact funding
proposals and make sure some form of documentation about how these
requirements have been addressed is included in the tenure file.
Alternatively, the CPCA needs additional guidance from the Provost
concerning how to handle these cases.
CPCA tenure review and vote prior to University at Albany employment
The procedures for senior scholar employment and tenure review differs
from the typical assistant professor hire. Currently, procedures exist for
employment of senior academics who transition to U Albany from peer
academic institutions. If an individual has tenure from a comparable
university, they may be granted tenure without CPCA review. If they have
sufficient experience to be appointed at the associate professor or professor
level, but not tenured, they are given a three year contract with a
continuation (tenure) review during the second year.
With the increase in professional education, UAlbany will be recruiting
senior scholars who have extensive experience in government, industry,
and research institutes, but potentially limited teaching experience. As a
case in point, this academic year a high-quality scholar who was offered
employment replied that acceptance was contingent on tenure. This posed
a challenge to the current system given the candidate’s limited teaching
record.
Recommendation: Add guidance on pre-employment tenure review for
employment of senior scholars who lack a traditional academic background
to the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review.
Evaluation of teaching
Teaching is central to the mission of the University. As such, a thorough
evaluation of teaching performance is critical to identify candidates who
are best suited to providing high quality education.
In Fall 2016, the UUP sent a report titled The Place of Student Evaluations
in Assessing Faculty Teaching to the Senate Chair who shared it with the
CPCA. The report argued that peer assessment should be the focus of
teaching performance evaluation; student evaluations should have minor
input. The report bases its argument on two points: (1) University
documents that guide teaching evaluation processes, and (2) bias in student
evaluations.
Review of Senate Bill 8384-07, including its rationale, does support the
contentions UUP argues. Specifically, that peer assessment should be the
focus; student evaluations should have limited weight in the overall
evaluation. Peer teaching evaluation was noted to have multiple
components, including (but not limited to): review of teaching statement,
syllabi, and course materials; peer observations of class; and an assessment
of student evaluations, internship mentorship, and theses mentorship. The
CPCA members read and discussed the UUP report. Overall, it appears
that the current system is in compliance with policy, however, there are
aspects that could be strengthened.
Recommendation: Given the importance of teaching evaluation, CPCA
members recommend that an ad-hoc committee carefully discuss how
current teaching evaluations are performed and provide specific
recommendations for updating the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure
Review. The following issues and questions have arisen related to teaching
evaluation:
• Peer observation of teaching typically is limited to two 1.5-hour class
periods during the year prior to P&C review. It is recommended that
observations occur with more frequency and over a longer period of
time. This is particularly important prior to the tenure decision.
o
As noted in the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review
“Departments
should avoid conducting peer observations only at the time of
the tenure review process.”
• The UUP report correctly notes that student evaluations are known to
be biased by demographic characteristics and grading. However,
based on the literature, these same biases exist with peer and
supervisory evaluations also.
o
CPCA suggests consideration be given to providing adjusted
SIRF scores along with the unadjusted scores. Scores can be
adjusted for professor’s demographics; class size and student’s
self-reported expected grade in the course.
• Other SIRF issues have arisen.
o
The low response proportion continues to concern CPCA
members.
o
The window of time for SIRF responses is wide, allowing
students to start the evaluation process weeks before
material is covered. Could the window be shortened and
begun nearer the end of the semester?
o
Is it possible to allow departments to conduct evaluation
surveys designed by the department?
• For dossiers being reviewed for promotion to Full professor, consider:
separating pre-tenure and post-tenure teaching records into
o
two separate sections in the dossier.
o
providing results of SIRF scores separately for pre-tenure
and post-tenure periods.
Grade distributions should be stratified by the type of grading system (i.e., A-E
and S/U) to make comparisons between the professor and department averages.
Providing A-E grade percentages separately would facilitate comparison of a
professor’s grading distributions to department norms.
Teaching which occurs outside the traditional classroom is inconsistently filed
in the dossiers, typically either in the teaching or service sections. These
activities include project mentorship, thesis committee work, development of
degree curricula, etc. Some of these activities align well with the service
section, making organization of the dossier somewhat inconsistent.
Further, with respect to mentorship commitments, quantifying the role and time
commitment would add further detail and consistency of review.
o
Consider asking candidates to delineate the role and time
commitment for thesis activities (e.g., committee member),
internship mentoring, research mentoring, and routine
academic advisement. For example, did doctoral committee
membership include intellectual involvement in the design
and process of thesis work, or was the candidate’s
involvement limited to reviewing the thesis to assure
department standards are met?
External reviewers of scholarship
The importance of the external reviews cannot be overstated; however,
attention must be given to ensuring selection does not bias the review
process. Given that most dossiers include scholarship substantially outside
most CPCA members’ expertise, these letters are crucial in the assessment of
the scholarship’s quality and quantity. In the majority of cases reviewed,
CPCA members discussed the inappropriateness of at least one external
reviewer based on the guidelines in the Procedures for Promotion and
Tenure Review. Central to these deliberations was the interpretation of
“arm’s length” distance between the candidate and reviewer, including the
following examples:
• reviewer had previously stayed in the candidate’s home while
visiting U Albany
• reviewer had been invited by the candidate to U Albany
previously for a seminar talk
• reviewer had recruited the candidate to serve on a journal’s
editorial board
• reviewer and candidate spent several summers together at a small
group workshop
• reviewer had interviewed the candidate for a job previously
• reviewer potentially had a professional or personal stake in
relationship with candidate
Other issues that arose and would benefit from deliberation and potential
modification of the Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review include:
• The requirement that reviewers are at peer or aspiring institutions.
o
In some cases, the most well-respected scholar in a field is a
powerhouse at a university that is not considered peer or
aspiring.
o
International work benefits from international external review.
Non-US universities can be difficult to measure as peer or
aspiring except at the highest level. Again, the selection of
scholars with strong, documented scholarship records is
extremely valuable and may be a better criterion for
qualifications as a reviewer involving international research.
o
Scholars in non-academic settings also are highly valuable to
provide a review of scholarship, particularly in disciplines that
are applied in nature.
o
Reviewers who have all traveled through one or two
universities taps into a network that some Council members
thought was too limited. In very few fields are there truly only a
couple of institutions capable of producing all scholars capable
to review a dossier.
• Reviewers have strong relationships with senior faculty in the
department (e.g., former students, collaborators). These relationships
can appear to bias the resulting letter in some cases.
• Reviewer was previously a faculty member at U Albany. Again, this
can be seen as lacking the independent, external review that is
sought.
• Quality of external reviewer letters
o
The most concerning issue is unusually short letters (i.e., one
brief paragraph). This suggests little actual review occurred.
In this case, the department should consider soliciting an
additional letter as some Council members may disqualify the
review.
o
No substantial evaluation of the candidate’s publications even
within a longer letter.
Recommendation: Given the importance of scholarship evaluation, CPCA
members recommend that an ad-hoc committee carefully discuss how
current external reviews of scholarship can be improved and provide
specific recommendations for updating the Procedures for Promotion and
Tenure Review.
Conclusions
The process of reviewing dossiers is extremely gratifying to CPCA
members. Clearly, the university can attract exceptional talent, a reflection
on our own faculty’s expertise and scholarship. Our colleagues are
successfully pursuing excellence in scholarship, integrating cutting edge
methods of teaching while remaining actively engaged in service in the
university, their profession, government and communities.
Many dossiers were well organized, providing an opportunity to
thoroughly access the content and assess the candidate. The contents of this
summary focus both on the process of the review, committee membership,
and the substance of the dossiers. It is our hope that the details provided
herein sufficiently guide further contemplation of the challenges inherent
in refining the P&C process and specifically provide a starting point for
those who labor in this endeavor. The outcome will undoubtedly serve the
University well by attracting and retaining faculty capable of carrying out
its vision—developing innovative solutions, exceptional professionals,
rigorous 21st century scholars and the next generation of visionary leaders.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of CPCA 2016-2017, Louise-Anne
McNutt, PhD. Chair
GAC (Graduate Academic Council) – Sean Rafferty, Chair
GAC has staffed most of its committees and will be having its first
meeting on Tuesday the 26th.
GOV (Governance Council) – Jim Mower, Chair
GOV met for its initial 2017-18 meeting on September 6. The chair
(Mower) explained the functions and duties of GOV and its interactions
with the Senate. He discussed known agenda items for the upcoming year
including old business (reconsideration of Faculty Bylaws Amendments
BA 1617:01 and BA 1617:02). The chair also recounted the meetings
between the Senate leadership and the interim Provost and incoming
President over the summer. As an item of new business, GOV appointed
Julio Cuccio Slichko to the Campus Recreation Advisory Board.
LISC (Council on Libraries, Information Systems, and Computing) –
Nothing reported
UAC (Undergraduate Academic Council) – Christy Smith,
Chair
In early May via email UAC voted to approve some changes to the
major in Computer Engineering. Selected courses from the CEN
program have been revised to meet ABET accreditation requirements
and guiding principles.
On May 22nd, Registrar Karen Chico Hurst and Assistant Dean of
Undergraduate Education Kathie Winchester extended an invitation to
members of UAC and its four subcommittees to attend a meeting to
continue discussion of the draft proposal to expand the language of the
undergraduate grading and grade change policies. The goal was to be in
compliance with SUNY’s 2013 guidelines, incorporate current business
practices into the policies, and set a time limit on when grades could be
changed. Earlier UAC and CAS feedback had been incorporated. Chief
of Staff Szelest also had input into the document. In June it was
circulated via email to the working group in attendance at the meeting
for final approval.
In late May via email UAC and the Curriculum and Honors
subcommittee reviewed a proposal from the Center for International
Education and Global Strategy for a Global Distinction milestone.
During a UAC meeting earlier in spring semester there was a discussion
of how Vice Provost Harvey Charles was making presentations on
campus regarding dual-degree programs integrating study abroad and
international internships. The Global Distinction milestone evolved from
those presentations. The Global Distinction Milestone would be awarded
to students after they complete a set of integrated academic experiences
including language study, study abroad, and an internship. The program
would be administered by CIEGS. It does not involve any alterations to
degree requirements for any major or minor. Over the summer, CIEGS’
program coordinator will assemble lists of potential courses which will
be reviewed in Undergraduate Education prior to CIEGS setting up
meetings with individual departments. The milestone will appear on the
bottom of the student’s transcript when completed. The proposal was
approved.
The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee reviewed two proposals for
University-Wide Internships for fall once the August application
deadline had passed.
The General Education Committee finalized two pending proposals for
general education category designations that had been revised.
The Committee on Academic Standing met two full days in June to
review appeals for petition for late drops and academic dismissals.
Approximately 265 students were academically dismissed and 134
appealed. CAS also met later in the summer to revisit two appeals
involving new information. They met again to adjudicate an academic
grievance coming out of the College of Arts and Sciences. They had
their first fall meeting to review petitions for readmission and for
exceptions 9/6. Another meeting is scheduled for 9/21. They will meet
every two weeks.
The first UAC meeting is scheduled for 9/19. Subcommittees are
forming.
ULC (University Life Council) – Ekow King, Chair
The first ULC Meeting is being held on Wednesday, Sept. 20th.
UPPC (University Planning and Policy Council) – James Collins, Chair
UPPC (University Planning and Policy Council) Final UPPC from Cynthia
Fox, Outgoing Chair
I. Informational
A. The Council met on May 11. New members for the 2017-2018 academic
were also in attendance.
1. The agenda included several reports:
a. Vice Provost Ann Marie Murray gave the provost’s report on behalf of
Interim Provost Wheeler. She reported 1) that the Strategic Planning
Steering Committee is moving forward. There have been meetings at all
three campuses to discuss the proposal. Attendance has been good and the
reaction has been positive; 2) that the Provost’s office held the first tenured
faculty reception made up of the applicants from 2015-2016; and 3) that the
Provost’s office is getting prepared for the new format of graduation and
will meet subsequently to evaluate the changes.
b. The Resource Analysis and Planning Committee reported on its meeting
of May 10 art which they discussed the impact new enrollments and new
programs have on the College of Arts and Sciences. They voted on two
motions.
1. Motion one states that the Campus Impact Form should be amended to
better reflect the real impact new programs will have on the College of Arts
and Sciences.
2. Motion two states that once a new program is approved it should be
mandatorily reevaluated again in either two or three years in order to assess
its ongoing impacts.
The subcommittee also discussed the enrollment shortfall and its impact on
the University’s budget planning. Vice President of Finance and
Administration Jim Van Voorst reported that the shortfall would be made up
through other sources.
c. The Facilities Committee reported on its meeting of April 6. Mary Ellen
Mallia, Director of Sustainability, gave a report on Sustainability initiatives.
Associate Vice President of Facilities Management John Giarrusso gave a
presentation on 2017-18 budget implications for Facilities Management and
also on construction projects around campus.
2. New Business
a. The language in the draft strategic plan was discussed.
b. Proposed changes to the Campus Impact Form were presented and
discussed, with new questions raised about the form’s effectiveness in
evaluating the resource implications of new programs and the final
instructions
c. Also, the committee debated the final instructions on the approval page,
especially the instructions given for the routing of forms.
3. On July 26, Chair Fox attended the Libraries’ staff meeting on the topic
of proposed changes to the Science and University Libraries.
4. In August, Chair Fox circulated a draft of the new Campus Impact Form
that included the proposed changes.
II. Actions Taken
A. The Council approved updates to the Campus Impact Form.
III. Recommendations.
A.None at this time.
UPPCReport090117 for SEC Meeting on 09/11/17
I.Information:
A.The Council met on August 30. It heard a report from VP for Finance
and Administration James Van Voorst, and council members
discussed the basis for the VP’s remarks about the capital side of the
budget regarding the CEAS/Schuyler renovations and other works,
and about the operational side of the budget, focusing on enrollments
and complexities of the Excelsior program.
B.The council heard a report from Sridar Chittur, Chair of the Facilities
Committee, and discussed ways of helping define committee goals
for this year. That discussion will continue, and administrative
visitors will be requested to help shape that agenda. Chair Collins
raised the issue of constituent concerns over space changes made in
the main University Library and the College of Arts and Sciences.
C.The council heard a report from Prof Mitch Leventhal, Chair of the
Resource Analysis and Planning Committee, and discussed staffing of
the committee, and a schedule of reports to the full council, tied to
committee meetings with representatives from the Office for Finance
and Administration.
D.Chair Collins provided an overview of Council mission and functions
for new members; reported on the current state of the University’s
strategic plan, based on summer Campus Governance Leaders, and
discussed appointments of Senate representatives to the Assessment
Advisory Committee for the Assessment of Non-Academic
Administrative Units -- Professors Stefl-Mabry from UPPC, Kressner
from GOV, and Ng from CAS.
E.The Council discussed proposed revisions to the Campus Impact
Form, all of which were accepted, with additional modifications.
F.The Council also discussed a 8/23/17 meeting of Senate officers with
members from the Offices of the Provost, Graduate Education, and
Undergraduate Education. Participants in the meeting considered
various ways to improve routing of academic program proposals
through the administrative and shared governance processes. It was
decided not to adopt strict deadlines for proposal submissions but
rather to encourage early consultation about all proposed program
changes, whether of small or large scale.
II.Actions:
A.None taken
III.Recommendations:
A.That the Senate leaders and appropriate councils, as well as the
Offices of Undergraduate and Graduate Education communicate with
Academic Deans and Departments about the need to consult early
with representatives of the Deans of Undergraduate and Graduate
Education about all proposed academic programs and changes to
existing programs. Such consultation will help those involved to
better understand the scope of the proposed changes, their
implications for more than the proposing academic units, and the best
or most feasible timetable for their review.
