February 8, 1995

Faculty Lounge 7:30 P.M.


Bernard Arogyaswamy, William Barnett, Carolyn Bashaw, Susan Behuniak, MaryL. Collins, John Consler, Cliff Donn, Anthony Eppolito, Vincent Hevern S.J.,Mark Karper, Robert Kelly, David Moore, Kathleen Nash, Nancy Ring, Ted Shepard,David Smith, Anthony Vetrano


Harjit Arora


Lynne Arnault, J. Barron Boyd, Charles Kelly, Student SenateRepresentatives (Andrea Cairo, Academic Affairs Officer; Sean Roberts,Vice-President; Amy Loebler, President)

MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING: Because the November 1994 meeting was actuallynot an "official" one due to the absence of a quorum, the Secretary indicatedthat he had been unsure how to proceed. After discussion, it was agreed that hewould report on the November meeting in truncated fashion.


Academic Vice President Report: William Barnett

1. Power Outage on 7 February 1995. Cancellation of classesyesterday followed the loss of 1 of 2 main electrical cables during the night.Physical Plant was heroic in switching all affected buildings over to the othercable (with the new chapel supplied through a jury-rigged cable from the JesuitResidence). This happening will result in major long-term repairs to theelectrical cable system as well as repair of motors burned out in theaftermath. A significant expenditure of moneys from the Plant Fund isanticipated.

2. Presidential Review of R & T Matters. The President hasreviewed the recommendations from the Rank and Tenure Committee regarding thisyear's applications. He will make his recommendations for tenure to the Boardof Trustees at their next meeting on February 10 and will inform them ofpromotions in rank. He has also completed his review of the changes to R &T voted by the faculty and will soon send his comments to Senate PresidentMoore. He will apprise the Board of Trustees of the matters at their nextmeeting and will be making his formal recommendations regarding R & Tprocedures to the Board at their late April meeting.

3. Update on Admissions. The number of applications forundergraduate admissions is running strong. At the last report about a weekearlier, they stood 13-14% ahead of last year's application and the overallquality of the applicants' academic credentials his higher than lastyear.

Faculty Senate Committee Reports

Elections: Ted Shepard

Nothing new has been voted on.

Research & Development: Harjit Arora

No report

Curriculum: Carolyn Bashaw

Continues working in very timely fashion [as the Proposal for the Women'sStudies Minor discussed below demonstrates.]

Rank & Tenure: Bernard Arogyaswamy

No report.

Faculty Rights & Welfare: Tony Eppolito

No report.

Finance: Cliff Donn

The latest report from Cliff was dated December 4th and is appended. Sincethe Committee had not met in the interval, there was no further report to bemade.


(a) Student Vote on Curriculum Committee. Should a Faculty Senatevote be taken on the following proposal? "The student representative to theFaculty Senate Curriculum Committee will be a voting member. The chair of thecommittee will also be a voting member and any proposal will be defeated by atie vote."

This proposal received widespread support among members of the ExecutiveBoard except for some clarification of the role of the chair of the committeeregarding voting. After discussion, the resolution above was agreed tounanimously by the Executive Board and will be submitted to the full facultyfor its vote.

(b) Annual Faculty Teaching Evaluations. Approval of the newprocedures suggested by the Department Chairs for faculty teachingevaluations.

The Executive Board considered the Report of the Committee on FacultyEvaluations (Spring 1993) which was taken up by Department Chairs. Thediscussion involved a variety of issues: the adequacy of the current evaluationinstrument (Hevern et al.), whether graduate faculty would be included in theproposal (Consler), the adequacy of language in the Faculty Handbook regardingevaluations (AVP), and how faculty would develop a "self-evaluation report"(various).

Mark Karper proposed that the Executive Board consider a resolution that"all but one course section be formally evaluated annually for all faculty.Full-time faculty may designate one course section to be informally evaluatedannually. Further, all courses taught by part-time faculty will be evaluatedformally." Discussion raised the issue whether this resolution applied to bothgraduate as well as undergraduate courses. It was agreed that the resolutionwas meant to include all courses taught at Le Moyne, graduate andundergraduate. This resolution was passed without dissent and will be sent onto the full faculty for its vote.

(c) Faculty Senate Vote on Various Amendments. Submit for vote ofthe Faculty Senate the amendments to the constitution as provided in thehandout. This includes by-laws that will specify the procedures, identical tothose employed to elect members of the Curriculum Committee, for election ofmembers of the newly approved Academic Affairs Committee.

President Moore reminded the Executive Board that the newcommittee-Academic Relations, Policies, and Procedures-had been approved lastyear by the Faculty Senate in a form which did not specify a mechanism to electmembers. He asked for the Executive Board to approve a vote among the Facultyin which membership on the new committee would follow the same format formembership and election as the Curriculum Committee. This was approved by theExecutive Board without dissent.

(d) Faculty Teaching Load at 9 Hours Per Semester. Appointment ofan ad hoc committee to investigate the feasibility of amending the FacultyHandbook to read: "The maximum teaching obligation for full-time teachingfaculty shall not exceed nine hours weekly each semester.

This proposal promoted a wide ranging discussion. The AcademicVice-President noted that he would have to veto any current change to anine-hour maximum teaching load per semester because of the impact it wouldhave financially upon the college; however, the AVP supported the notion of afeasibility study, especially if it addressed issues of how to achieve equityin faculty responsibilities across the different disciplines. The theme ofequity was joined by various Board members who made inquiries of the AVP andthe Dean of Studies regarding diversity in teaching load as it reflectedcontractual obligations by current faculty. The AVP reminded the Board that 3/3departmental changes had been approved by AVP Carlson only if the DepartmentChairs could demonstrate no increase in the number of overall sections beingtaught.

A proposal was made to establish an ad hoc committee to consider the issueof faculty work load and the general question of equity in workresponsibilities across departments. This was passed with no opposition and oneabstention.

(e) 1/2% Increase in TIAA/CREF. Refer to the Professional Rightsand Welfare Committee investigation of the status of the 1/2% increase inTIAA/CREF contributions.

This was moved and passed without dissent.

(f) Campus Directory. Refer to the Faculty Senate Officers thequestion of getting the campus directory released in a more timelyfashion.

With the meeting getting so long, V. Hevern withdrew this item which hehad originally submitted.

(g) Faculty Organization by Division. Refer to the ElectionsCommittee the task of proposing a more equitable organization of the facultyinto divisions than is presently in place.

As faculty departments have changed in sizes and distribution of rankamong their members, the relative burdens on faculty in certain departments toserve the college on committees, etc. has become quite unfair. Without dissent,the Executive Board agreed to ask the Elections Committee to propose a morereasonable and updated division of the departments of the college.

(h) Faculty Travel Funds. Refer to the Faculty Senate Officersthe questions pertaining to the allocation of faculty travel funds.

Barron Boyd noted that new forms for faculty travel are not yet in place;they are being put together now. Sue Behuniak asked about how certainout-of-pocket expenses associated with travel will be reimbursed. Boydindicated that, if there was money available at the end of the year, it wouldbe allocated to pay these expenses as had been done previously. C. Donn notedthat the department chairs had been consulted about the matter of how thesefunds would be allocated.


(a) Adoption of Minus Grades by the College. A brief but livelyexchange ensued over this matter. Hevern backed by Donn argued against thisproposal while Arogyaswamy made a supportive case. The sense of the ExecutiveBoard was not to agree to adopt this proposal and it was tabled for latersubmission to the (imminent) Academic Relations, Policies, and ProceduresCommittee.

(b) (Finally). Women's Studies Minor.

The Curriculum Committee through Carolyn Bashaw indicated its approval ofthe proposed Minor in Women's Studies as delineated in the able proposalof October 10, 1994 prepared by Lynne Arnault and Nancy Ring. Carolyn alsoresponded in the affirmative to President Moore's question whether a Minorprogram as a whole could be approved before specific course elements (e.g.,WMS101 and WMS401) had been approved. The AVP also affirmed his support sincethe Minor would have no major impact upon the budget of the Academic division.Various Board members spoke in support of the Minor and saw in its expeditiousformulation a clear commitment to the expressed needs of students as well as adisplay of the depth of professional expertise within the overall faculty.

The Women's Studies Minor was put to a vote of the Executive Board andagreed to with only a single dissenting vote.

The meeting was adjourned to the grateful relief of the Board's members at9:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Vincent W. Hevern, SJ


26 February 1995

Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 14:30:58 EST

From: donn@maple.lemoyne.edu

Reply-To: lmc_chat@maple.lemoyne.edu


What follows is a report to you on the most recent state of the budgetdeliberations for 1995-96. The budget committee met on November 30, 1994. Iwas not present at that meeting but I did have a long discussion with VicePresident Tom O'Neill before hand and my faculty colleagues have filled me inon what happened at the meeting.

1. First, there is some bad news to report with regard to the current year'sbudget. Enrollments do not appear to be holding up at the level we hoped theywould. We anticipate a large number of graduations in December. This lowerthan expected student number clearly has implications for the 1995-96 budget aswell, since it may imply that the enrollment number of 1761 which we havefocused on as our realistic scenario may not be all that realistic. No one hasyet said anything about any further cuts being necessary for the current(1994-95) year's budget. I hope they won't be necessary but will let you knowimmediately if I learn otherwise.

2. The Budget Committee has now considered what looks like the budget for1995-96. There is some good news about that budget and some bad news.

3. First, the good news! The budget contains the faculty salary enhancement(as well as enhancements for other groups) and small increases in departmentaloperating budgets. Unfortunately the tuition increase could not be held at theoriginal proposed level of 5.5% but it was held to 6%, which is a lot betterthan some of the likely scenarios we considered.

4. The bad news is that this prospective budget contemplates several fewerfull-time faculty, several fewer full-time administrators and staff (all suchcuts to be achieved through attrition), and significant cuts in financial aid(at least as compared to what it would have been. Presumably one implicationof this is that at least some of the faculty searches now on-going will beterminated. Let me emphasize that no FINAL decision has been made on thismatter yet. Bill Barnett was also absent from the November 30, 1994 meeting ofthe budget committee and even then, the budget which that committee adopts isonly a recommendation to the President as to what budget he should submit tothe Board of Trustees. I suggest that concerned department chairs contactBill.

5. The budget was brought into balance via the actions mentioned above butwithout some of the more severe actions contemplated in part because theconsumer price index has cooperated by increasing less than we had thought itmight. We have also reduced the proposed transfer to the plant fund (i.e.money set aside for maintenance) and made some slightly more optimistic (but Ialso think more realistic) estimates of several revenue and expenditureitems.

6. If the enrollments fall below the projected 1761 for 1995-96, our intentionis to meet most of the shortfall by reducing the transfer to the plant fundeven further and by running a deficit. It is not our intention to make latecuts in operating budgets as we did this year. However, the implications forthe 1996-97 budget, which we shall be working on at this time next year, wouldbe grim.

7. I would be happy to hear from any of you about your reactions to all of thisand suggestions you might have. I continue to note that the issue here is oneof choosing among unpleasant alternatives. I would be happy to discuss theseissues with you either privately, at the full faculty senate meeting onWednesday, December 7, or over LMC_Chat. One goal which Mark Karper expressedfor this year's budget process was that it be open and that faculty, staff andstudents be kept fully abreast of budgetary information and decisions. Thecollege budget committee adopted that goal and I hope we have been able to meetit to your satisfaction.


Clifford B. Donn PHONE 445-4367

Dept of IRHRM, International Studies

Program, Study Abroad Program E-MAIL donn@maple.lemoyne.edu


Created: 9/4/97 Updated: 9/4/97