September 20, 1995

Faculty Lounge 7:30 P.M.


Bernard Arogyaswamy, Carolyn Bashaw, Susan Behuniak, Mary K. Collins, MaryL. Collins, John Consler, Vincent Hevern S.J., Mark Karper, Robert Kelly,Kathleen Nash, Orlando Ocampo, Nancy Ring, Marcia Ruwe, Ted Shepard, DavidSmith, Clarence Taylor, Anthony Vetrano


Cliff Donn, Mary Ann Donnelly, K. R. Hanley, LaVerne Higgins, David Lloyd,Mary Maleski, Michael Miller, Erin Mitchell (Student Senate Academic AffairsChair) and a several more interested folk whom I don't list because I can'tfind the page on which I wrote their names.

The President called the Executive Board to order at 7:30 PM.

CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES: As specified in the Constitutionof the Faculty Senate, the Officers and elected members of the Executive Boardconfirmed without opposition the members of the committees appointed by theFaculty Senate President: Elections (Ted Shepard, Tom Frank, John McMahon),Budget (Jennifer Glancy, Evelyn Monsay, Mary K. Collins, John Consler), andResearch & Development (Mary McDonald, Lori Haslem, Louis De Gennaro,Douglas Egerton, Patricia Schmidt, LaVerne Higgins and Bill Miller [at large]).Committees were appointed by President Karper after consultation with the otherOfficers.

Confirmation was also given to John Freie as At Large member of theAcademic Policies and Procedures Committee and to Carmen Giunta as At Largemember of the Curriculum Committee. Note was also made that the extra member ofthe Professional Rights and Welfare Committee is stated in the By Laws as thePresident of the Le Moyne College Chapter of AAUP. There has been no suchperson at Le Moyne since the chapter is defunct. Hence, the seat is vacant andaction will have to be taken to rectify that provision of the By Laws.

Chairs have not yet been elected by the Professional Rights & Welfare,Research and Development, and Academic Procedures and Policies Committees.Hence, they were not represented at this meeting.

DATE OF FULL SENATE MEETING. The Executive Board set the date and time ofthe Full Senate meeting for this semester as 2:00 PM on December 13 in theReilley Room.

MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING: The Minutes of the March 15, 1995 meeting of theExecutive Board were approved without dissent. The Minutes of Full FacultySenate on April 11, 1995 were presented to the Executive Board. Cliff Donnnoted that only a full Senate Meeting can approve these minutes, which approvalwas deferred until the next full Senate meeting on December 13, 1995.


Comments of the Academic Dean. Marcia Ruwe was introduced byPresident Karper as the ex officio representative to the Executive Board. Sheopened her remarks by noting her expectation that she will be a "moreconsultative type" of administrator. In this light, she asked for the advice ofthe Executive Board regarding how to handle the issue of faculty travel, fundsfor which has been temporarily frozen due to the budgetary problems. Sheexpects by the end of the month to have a better handle on what may or may notbe possible. While she could make an administrative decision, she asked forinput from the faculty for what she should do.

Dean Ruwe was asked by Nancy Ring whether her request was in the form of aproposal to the Executive Board. Pres. Karper noted it had been made after theagenda had been determined. Dean Ruwe restated her expectation of presenting anumber of matters such as this to the board for its advice. Pres. Karperreminded the board that faculty travel was an item in the handbook and, whilewe might be able to state individual views, we could not made a decision whichwould tend to abridge faculty interests without their having seen this on theagenda and given their input. Pres. Karper wishes it to be clear that mattersto be discussed will be on an agenda distributed to all our colleagues.

Reports of Faculty Senate Standing Committees. No written reportswere submitted prior to the meeting. Oral reports were heard from:

Academic Policies & Procedures (APP) Committee (no chair electedyet): no report made.

Curriculum Committee (C. Bashaw): The committee has met, approvedtwo courses, and will elect a Core Evaluation Team for the Core CurriculumReview next week.

Elections Committee (T. Shepard):

Finance Committee (M. K. Collins): We face a $1.3-1.4 milliondeficit on the projected budget of which the Budget Committee has foundapproximately $800K to close the gap. The deficit is serious, but manageablethis year. If it goes into next year, it will be much more serious.

Professional Rights & Welfare Committee (no chair elected yet):no report.

Rank & Tenure Committee (B. Arogyaswamy): The committee hasreceived 14 applications. Five for promotion to associate professor with tenureand nine for promotion to full professor. Supporting forms should be receivedby Oct. 6. Pres. Karper noted that there was some confusion regarding languagein the Handbook. Actually, the language in the Handbook is accurate. ThePresident had submitted back some friendly amendments which were accepted assuch by the Executive Board; these were submitted to the Board of Trusteeswhich approved them, and all these changes have been incorporated into theHandbook. This accounts for the differences between what was voted on and whatappears in the Handbook. No departmental standards have been sent to thecommittee and these will be implemented for 1996-97. Pres. Karper indicated hewould be writing to colleagues who have applied to the committee and explainthis matter.

Research & Development Committee (no chair elected yet): noreport.

Secretary Hevern reiterated the expectation that written reports(preferably via e-mail) be sent to him a week before subsequent meetings. Pres.Karper noted that our colleagues need to have such reports. Secretary Hevernnoted that a Faculty Senate Bulletin was now in place on the VAX and hopes tohave a web homepage site


(a) Student Representation on Curriculum Committee. (taken up nowwith presence of Student Government representative, Erin Mitchell).Submission anew of proposal for a vote for the studentrepresentative.

C. Bashaw noted that Erin's duties include an hour meeting every week forboth semesters as well as reading/assimilating all of the printed materialswhich come before the Curriculum Committee. Ted Shepard noted the currentintent to clarify who actually is a member of the Senate, esp. in regard toadjunct faculty who may no longer be interested, etc. in continuing as Senatemembers. V. Hevern noted that most deliberative bodies maintain a regularmechanism to certify and recertify eligible voters (e.g., in unions, among UScitizens, etc.); but, we don't seem to have such a mechanism. Because of this,vague membership criteria are submitted to no one's review, esp. in applyingcriteria for long-term adjunct participation. Hence, we now have over 150Senate members and increasing difficulty in gaining a requisite number to votein referenda. Pres. Karper believes we have an inaccurate voting list. But, theissue on the table is whether we wish to resubmit to the faculty the proposalfor a vote, which garnered a majority of the voters last year but still fellshort of the absolute majority of the Senate's membership.

John Consler moved that this be resubmitted to the Faculty for theirconsideration. The question was raised whether this would have ramificationsfor the new APP committee which is modeled constitutionally on the CurriculumCommittee. At the time the APP committee was passed, students did not have avote on the Curriculum Committee and, so the issue appears moot. Also, studentsmight ask to have such a vote rather than be told there is another committeespot for them to fill. It was asked whether it might be better to ask thefaculty to vote on the franchise in regard to both committees. Regardless, MarkKarper still has to notify the Student Senate that they are invited to send arepresentative to the new APP.

The Executive Board approved (with one abstention) that the Faculty beasked to permit the student representative on the Curriculum Committee to havea vote.

(b) Constitutional Language Changes from 1993-1994. Proposal toremove from the table and submit to the faculty for a vote.

Mark Karper noted that Mary Lynn Collins and Bob O'Brien had served on thecommittee which made the eleven recommendations (deletions and additions) foundon the copy of the Constitutions distributed to the Executive Board. Mary K.Collins noted that, at the last meeting of the 1993-94 Executive Board, thesechanges had been approved and a Faculty discussion held as mandated by theConstitutions. Hence, these changes are ready to be voted upon by the faculty.

Pres. Karper asked for Executive Board approval to make "cosmetic changes"to the Constitutions in regard to any sexist language. V. Hevern pointed outthat he objects to the vagueness of the language of some of the items, esp.,Art. 6, #4 (which Mary Ann Donnelly clarified as prohibiting six years serviceon any single committee rather than across all those mentioned); Art. 8, #2(who elects the ad hoc committee noted there? M.A. Donnelly believes itis the Executive Board). V. Hevern noted we also have to change the languagewhich speaks about the "Chief Academic Officer" to account for the new AcademicDean. The two interpretations of M.A. Donnelly regarding Art. 6 & Art. 8were accepted as "friendly amendments". V. Hevern asked whether the changeinvolving "professors emeriti" permits individuals to be members of the Senateapplies to individuals who teach just a single hour a year. The response by theBoard was affirmative.

K. R. Hanley asked that changes made in English also apply to Latin, e.g.,emeriti/emeritae.

The friendly amendments were accepted by the Executive Board with oneabstention.

M. L. Collins noted that the By Laws were not included in her adhoc committee's job and still needed to be addressed.

(c) Stipends. Proposal for a college-wide task force toexamine.

Mark Karper asked for authority to appoint a task force to investigatestipends for summer school, for overloads, for the graduate programs inEducation and Business, for Advising, and for any additional compensationreceived by faculty at all levels and for all activities. This is to bedistinguished from the information solicited in the item below regarding courseload reductions.

M. A. Donnelly noted that some faculty receive stipends in lieu of acourse reduction. M. Karper indicated he is interested in the committee investigatingnot whether or for what reason a stipend is given, but the level or amount ofthe stipend. Ultimately the task force would make a set of recommendations inrespect to stipends as they relate to our faculty salary plan. The AcademicDean would be an ex officio member (without vote) on this task force. M. Karperagreed that this was a faculty-wide committee (that is, not to include staff& administrators).

J. Consler warned that the APP or this committee spending a long timediscussing equity, compensation, and other salary issues would probably bepreempted after a while by administrative decisions regarding budget. Adiscussion followed regarding equity issues and how these might beaddressed.

The Executive Board approved without dissent the proposal to establish thetask force as asked by Pres. Karper.

(d) Course Loads and Reductions. Proposal for a comprehensivestudy, report, and recommendations by the Academic Policies and ProceduresCommittee.

Mark Karper suggested we ask the APP committee to make its first prioritythe study called for in this proposal. Susan Behuniak asked that this proposalalso include how stipends are awarded, how stipends are disseminated, and howindividuals are notified about their availability. M. Karper clarified that thenotion of priority meant that other issues on their docket would take a backplace to this issue. He also asked that the Dean provide the APP committee withthe data regarding salaries and associated matters (course loads &reductions). Mary Maleski asked that the charge to the committee include courseload reductions and imposed overloads. J. Consler recalled that last year an adhoc committee on course overloads was appointed. This proposal would supersedethat ad hoc committee.

The Dean indicated she would be happy to provide the APP with the dataneeded. Some of this information has already been accumulated and she has beenreviewing these matters herself as an urgent charge vis-a-vis budgetarymatters. She also believes that these matters ought not to be viewed piecemealbut in an overall fashion.

S. Behuniak asked that the Executive Board vote on this proposal as a wayof backing up both the Academic Dean and the APP Committee as they undertakethis work. All additional issues mentioned above were judged to be part of thescope of the proposal (i.e., course loads, course overloads, imposed overloads,course reductions, and stipend award procedures). The Dean asked that the issueof what faculty do which is not compensated for also be included in thisproposal (and, this was accepted).

This charge to the APP was agreed upon unanimously by the ExecutiveBoard.

(e) Divisional Reapportionment.

Ted Shepard noted that options for restructuring had been considered lastMarch. New numbers have been generated for each division, but these stillrequire confirmation. The Elections Committee asks for help in determining whois/isn't a member of the Senate.

V. Hevern proposed that the Divisional representatives meet with theChairs of their own division to gain a tally based upon the current list ofmembers maintained by the Elections Committee. In a discussion of membershipfor each standing committee, the question of participation of part-time vs.full-time faculty was briefly touched on; currently all committee assignmentsare filled by full-time faculty. The Executive Board appeared to agree to V.Hevern's suggested way of reviewing membership of the Senate generally.

(f) Predoctoral Fellowship and Black Visiting Scholar Programs:their status?

M. Karper indicated this would be a formal request of the Dean to reporton their status. Clarence Taylor described the predoctoral fellowship programwhich had been in place (ABD minority scholar would be invited to come here toteach with $25,000 compensation, work with a mentor, and hopefully be able toaccept a tenure-track slot). As an indicator that this program works, it wasnoted that Prof. Paul Taylor was recruited in this way. However, the programseems to have been eliminated without discussion. The Black Visiting ScholarProgram was touched on briefly. The Dean will be able to report on theseissues.

(g) Group Term Life Insurance: Benefit reduction at age 50 andpossible changes to current procedures needs to be investigated.

M. Karper asked for permission to negotiate this matter because it is abenefit that applies college-wide to all faculty and staff. The opinion wasoffered that an age-related benefit reduction is illegal (though, ifchallenged, might also result in an overall reduction across all faculty). Thisreduction seems to have been in effect for many years. LaVerne Higgins notedthat it was probably in violation of Federal statute. The Executive Boardoffered not dissent from Karper pursuing this matter.

(h) Proposal to rename Graduate Business Students' Lounge as GraduateStudents' Lounge

Issues raised regarding this matter included whether another lounge wouldbe provided to other graduate students (i.e., Education), whether this proposalwould obviate the designation of another area as a lounge, and the use of thisspace for class purposes (e.g., as a "breakout" space for business classes).More general space allocation questions were raised, e.g., whether oneprogram/department would have access to air conditioned classrooms over thesummer to the exclusion of other programs/departments. M. Karper was concernedthat this proposal might preclude building/designating another student spaceand that the Executive Board might not have authority to rename a room. N. Ringwas concerned over the exclusivity of usage implied in the name of the currentlounge: would other students be welcome? B. Arogyaswamy noted too that thislounge was only reserved for business student use after 5:00 pm. It wassuggested by several members that the real issue here was the need for morespace to be allocated for other graduate students.

Mark Karper asked that the motion be tabled. The matter was tabled with 7in favor and 6 opposed. J. Consler asked the terminus of this tabling:to what group, for what time? While it was clarified that the real notion hereis the expectation that more space would be sought/allocated, John's questionwent unanswered.

(i) Faculty Lounge: Use and Physical Upgrade

V. Hevern noted that the room had been used a number of times and wonderedwho was giving permission. M. Karper noted he has the authority to open theroom to other. The discussion also included the issue of improvements; S.Behuniak recalled the "Lounge Lizards" committee which made recommendations;but lacking any money/resources, nothing was done. Since some had found thelounge dirty, it was wondered whether the cleaning service might be improvedhere. N. Ring asked whether we might be able to put in a parallel to the Staffroom, e.g., microwave unit, etc. S. Behuniak will try to resurrect therecommendations of the "Lizards" committee for possible consideration by theDean. M. Karper suggested that the Officers negotiate this matter with theadministration. Caution was called for that we not stock a room and, then, findthe items stolen.


(j) Faculty Travel: The Academic Dean's earlierrequest

Cliff Donn noted that we keep going through this sort of matter all thetime. We shouldn't be discussing this matter. Rather, we should be givenoptions by departments after presentation of needed savings in total amounts.The Budget Committee should not be assigning specified sums for travel; theyshould not be establishing priorities. We should be making these decisions.Different departments might consider different areas for cuts. The Deanconfirmed that except for admissions and a few other exceptions alladministrative travel is cut; faculty travel would be given greater priority ifresources were available. David Lloyd noted the problem of assistant professorsmoving toward tenure vs. other faculty with less pressing issues. M. Ruwe notedthis might be one approach (prioritizing by rank) but not the only onepossible. N. Ring noted how active her own department's faculty is and thepotential that papers could be given by them at excellent conferences; hence,allocations need to be given some sort of priority.

J. Consler noted that the dollar amount is small. After all, theadministration spent $238,000 over budget for salaries. It appears that thereis a bit of panic behind the decision regarding travel. M. Miller asked whethersome nontenured faculty might cancel travel now, yet, find themselves laterwith the offer of funds. S. Behuniak recalled that budgets were cut 25% lastyear with a promise that this would be restored; yet, this year we are downanother 4%. What guarantee do we have that this will not be made permanent?When it goes "one time only", it appears to stay gone. This is also asignificant challenge to continuing professional development and classroomeffectiveness as well as impacts upon the school's reputation. Mark Karperreferred to the fact of travel as a Handbook matter which specifies a right forfaculty. Hence, we should not be asked to authorize the abrogation of a facultyright under the Handbook which does not list any priorities by rank, tenurestatus, etc.

C. Donn noted the issues have to do with (a) general budgeting proceduresand (b) a history over recent years of already setting priorities in favor ofjunior faculty while senior faculty increasingly are excluded from travel. Henoted that the academic division is already a third of the way through thebudget year and still there is no budget. M. L. Collins reiterated the problem,esp. in her department, of untenured members now facing having to travelwithout compensation, yet moving toward tenure nonetheless.

V. Hevern asked that the Finance Committee give us an overview of wherethe school is going generally (esp. after hearing from the Board of Trustees).

No vote was taken on this matter.

M. K. Collins invited the Executive Board to consume the remnants of theAccounting Club's extravagant banquet which was noisily held next door in theReilley Room while the Executive Board worked so diligently.

The meeting was adjourned with visions of food at 9:25 PM.

Respectfully submitted

Vincent W. Hevern, S.J.


Oct 12, 1995

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