October 18, 1995

Faculty Lounge 7:30 P.M.


William Barnett, Susan Behuniak, Mary L. Collins, John Consler, CarmenGuinta, Vincent Hevern S.J., Mark Karper, Robert Kelly, David Lloyd, MaryMacDonald, John McMahon, Kathleen Nash, Orlando Ocampo, Nancy Ring, MarciaRuwe, Ted Shepard, David Smith, Clarence Taylor, Anthony Vetrano


Bernard Arogyaswamy, Mary K. Collins


Dennis DePerro, Cliff Donn, LaVerne Higgins, Michael Miller, MikeSchramm

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

MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING: The Minutes of the September 10, 1995 meeting ofthe Executive Board were approved after correcting an error on page 4, sectionC which should read: "M. A. Donnelly noted that some faculty receive stipendsin lieu of a course reduction." (correction underlined).

President Karper noted that in the last meeting there was a discussionregarding life insurance benefits for those over and under 50 years of age.After consultation, he found this is not discrimination since the law requiresthat the College spend the same amount of money on each individual regardlessof age (rather than provide the same benefit).

President Karper apologized to the Philosophy Department and one of itsmembers for saying at a meeting of a Academic Affairs subcommittee of the Boardof Trustees that they were "not in touch with reality" for a proposal to reduceteaching loads from 4/3 to 3/3.


The AVP will be here soon (at 8 PM). He will have comments then(see below). The Academic Dean did not have any comments at this point.

The President noted that the Senate Constitutions do state that the AVP isthe "ex officio" member and that we will have the AVP and Academic Dean attendExecutive Board meetings. We will deal with how to make changes regarding theAcademic Dean under agenda item H below.


It was announced that Ted Shepard is now chair of Professional Rights andWelfare, John McMahon chair of the Elections Committee, and Mary MacDonaldchair of Research and Development. Carmen Giunta will serve as interim chair ofthe Curriculum Committee pending the election of the Division IV representativein wake of Carolyn Bashaw's resignation from that committee.

Reports were heard from:

Academic Relations, Policies & Procedures (ARPP) Committee(David Lloyd): Passed out a summary of the activities of the ARPP Committee forreview by the Executive Board. Secretary Hevern volunteered to spend PsychologyDepartment funds to make three or four copies of this report. David Lloydreported that three meetings had been held already. Using information generatedby Vinny Hevern and Mike Schramm, all references to the ARPP from previousMinutes which gave the committee work were gathered and prioritized. Arecommendation regarding the requested faculty rank of lecturer will be madesoon. A request will be made to the faculty for volunteers to serve on theevaluation team for administrators. We will need to move quickly if facultystatus for librarians is to be considered for inclusion within the Handbookbefore the end of the year.

An ad hoc subcommittee had been previously charged to deal with the Stipendissue and the ARPP Committee was asking for a written charge from PresidentKarper to take over review of this matter.

Because so much work is now being taken by the Planning Committee, we arerecommending to the Executive Board that the Planning Committee be asked tomake periodic reports to the Executive Board about their activities.

A request to cover Xeroxing and other expenses was made and directed towardthe Senate Secretary as well as the faculty secretary who can cover theseneeds.

A request was made to clarify the role of the Academic Dean vis-a-vis thiscommittee. Consideration of this was deferred to dealing withitem H.

The notion of "academic bankruptcy" was described and discussed. Thisconcept refers to a student who has a very poor academic record and returns toschool after a significant period of time. Can this person be allowed to startafresh? The Dean had directed this issue to the Curriculum Committee which sentit over to ARPP. She posed the alternative situation of students who start outin the "wrong major" and find themselves doing much, much better in a move to anew major, e.g., the person who originally declared as "pre-med" but finds selfway over their head. Can a entire single semester (without single coursesexcepted) be declared "bankrupt" vis-a-vis GPA under condition that notice ofthose courses be kept on the transcript?

Curriculum Committee (C. Giunta): No report

Elections Committee (J. McMahon): No report

Finance Committee (J. Consler for M. K. Collins): Mary K. Collinshad to be in NYC for an important meeting tonight. The deficit has beenwhittled down close to $562,000 as of today. This is a little bit above whereit was at this time last year. J. Consler had asked Tom O'Neill the status offaculty travel and he said President Mitchell was seeking more informationbefore releasing funds or not. While she has not yet been formally asked,Academic Dean Ruwe has already prepared the needed information; meanwhile, shehas released a certain amount of monies after having gotten in full reportsfrom Dept. Chairs regarding tenure-track faculty expenditures. Currently, ca.$50.000 has been requested so far for travel. J. Consler thanked Dean Ruwesince he had been given that information previously.

Professional Rights & Welfare Committee (Ted Shepard): noreport.

Rank & Tenure Committee (B. Arogyaswamy): no report.

Research & Development Committee (Mary MacDonald): noreport.


The new Dean of Enrollment Management, Dennis DePerro, was invited to makea presentation to the Executive Board regarding the role he might see thefaculty playing in the process of recruitment.

Since arriving in July, 1995, he has examined the offices under hisjurisdiction: Admissions, Continuous Learning, and Career Services. He believeswe must take a "campus wide" approach to change. Not all the constituents ofthe school are involved in recruitment.

With regard to recruiting, a set of recommendations will soon be made tothe AVP which will involve the faculty in the process. Dennis is not a big fanof just having faculty phoning students. Rather, faculty could be involved inbringing high school teachers, counselors, and students to the campus to shareexpertise with these people; faculty can reach out to the community, e.g., inlecturing at high schools to students and/or their teachers. In his lastposition, a program was instituted where every potential student who steppedonto campus and indicated a potential major met with faculty in that field;such faculty were already trained to deal with typical questions of suchapplicants. Events here will be extended to include faculty who will be askedto be involved in different (rather than a narrow single) ways of assistance.We need to be sure we are servicing the needs of applicants, e.g., transferstudents, course/credit evaluations. We may need to review policies which mayprevent students from transferring credit due to core curriculum or otherconstraints. With regard to continuous learning students, our media tells ushow much of a competitive market we are in here in Syracuse. We must look atissues like course offerings to be sure we meet needs of the population in thearea. Each department has a distinctive edge which must be highlighted in ourapproach to the recruitment effort and which Communications will need toaddress in its work. Dennis is impressed with a history of good enrollments inthe past. Hence, we need to become more aggressive in publicizing withoutchanging our strengths, but refining how we present ourselves.

Secretary Hevern asked if we have any data on the impact we do have onstudents who visit campus. Dennis says that Jim Duffy has some interestinginformation via the College Board regarding students' choices. Hevern refocusedthe question to how students perceive LeMoyne before they are accepted butafter they visit the place. Dennis suggested that more work in Admissions wasneeded to survey events held for potential students.

Hevern also asked who frankly we wanted to recruit here. What are welooking for? DePerro affirmed the importance of that question while pointing toour need to discuss this question at much greater length. Hevern asked wherethe Faculty fit into that under the Senate Constitution's statement givingfaculty authority over admissions standards. DePerro noted that apresidentially-appointed Admissions Committee exists here which has not met inat least two years. He expects to convene this "advisory" committee forestablishing policy.

President-elect Behuniak observed that changes such as he was proposingmight be met with opposition. Hence, the question arose regarding the supportand authority he has, specifically regarding hiring and firing, to implementwhat needed to be done. Dennis said he has received full support from the AVPfor his message to staff that we cannot and will not proceed with "business asusual." The AVP reviewed how staff recruitment and separation/termination isdone at LeMoyne. He noted he would normally be accepting of Dennis'srecommendations in this regard and, indeed, if strong resistance was shown toDennis's planning after the AVP and President approve these plans, changes instaffing will be made. The survival of the institution is ultimately at stakein this area.

Mary L. Collins noted that she and Anne Marie Trait had been at Oswego at arecruitment fair. She expressed thanks to the Communications Office fordesigning the "best cover of a brochure" in the eyes of one prospectivestudent. Others asked about the potential PA program or about graduateeducation. Yet, she noted that LeMoyne was the only college at the fair withouta banner and she had not been prepared to answer PA questions. Yet, thatexperience seemed positive.

John Consler asked if there were any dramatic differences in the upcomingOpen House. Dennis reviewed plans for the Open House. Many more areas ofinterest and concern by participants will be addressed in the course of theday. Much more of the campus will be opened for review and tour. Manyadministrative offices will be open. Larger numbers of faculty, staff, andstudents will be working on the day.

Clarence Taylor asked about how faculty might deal with additionalrecruitment responsibilities outside the school on top of their teaching,research, and service work on campus. Cliff Donn noted that, after many facultyhad been told in the past that they could be of great help to the recruitmenteffort, most never heard again from Admissions. Dennis DePerro was verypositive about approaching the faculty with an offer of a variety of ways inwhich they could be of help (rather than one particular method). E.g. onlyusing faculty who wish to do so to phone students when students areadmitted.

The Executive Board expressed its best wishes to Dennis and his wife,Sherry, who is soon to give birth.


The work of putting together the Middle States Reaccreditation Visitself-study is well underway. Faculty are invited to participate as actively asthey can in this very important matter.

The President is thinking very seriously how we can maintain momentum inthe renovation of facilities for instruction. Faculty are urged to payattention to any initiatives on this matter in the near future. The Board ofTrustees still have some decisions to make about the scope of the CapitalCampaign but have already accepted some, not all, recommendations for inclusionof some high priority items, e.g., renovation of classrooms and instructionalspace in Reilly Hall, Grewen Hall, and the Coyne Science Center. The Presidentis concerned about waiting until the Capital Campaign is underway beforebeginning some of these project, especially since some of these changes willaffect how we attract students as well as change the quality of instructionhere. We need to get some input next Monday afternoon for what the Task Forceon Academic Facility Planning has been discussing, at least in part, onacademic instructional space. Clyde Wolford and the AVP will be there both tomake presentations and to listen to the faculty.

The Curriculum Committee will soon receive materials regarding the proposedPhysician's Assistant program which is essentially identical to the materialswhich New York State will receive. We have an absolute deadline of November 4in getting this proposal to the professional association which is planning tocome for a site accreditation visit on December 12 to see if we have ourfacility and curriculum in place.

The AVP was asked about the status of the Minority Predoctoral Fellowshipprogram. He stated "it is my intention as we go about the construction of thebudget once again to introduce a proposal for funding that program. In thefuture I want to restore that program." He also noted we must anticipate theopenings on the faculty to help this program.

The AVP was asked about the status of the budget, the potential to get anytravel monies, et al. He stated that "as soon as we get a clear estimate of thefinancial impact on the priorities" (assistant professors facing tenure;associate professors facing promotion), the President will make a decision inresponse. With regard to getting the deficit down, if we are successful inattracting transfer students for January and it wouldn't take all that many,the picture would be brighter. We are probably headed toward some sort ofdeficit though it is not a planned deficit; we have no plan right now how toget out of it. We have gone about as far as we can go in terms of short termcuts in expenditures. We really have to concentrate on the long-term changes weneed to make to get us out of a deficit situation in the next year or two. Thatwill not be easy in shifting resources from programs, etc. We have importantdecisions in regard to teaching and other responsibilities. Marcia Ruwe hasalready begun working with the faculty on this and needs some time to completethis work.

We have something of a retention problem we are beginning to identify butit is premature to say more about that. We have people already working on thematter of part-time and summer school enrollment. We need to identify programsstudents can complete in the evening, the sequence of courses students cancomplete in the summer (it has been pretty much what faculty were willing toteach but that may not be meeting the needs of our market which are mostlyLeMoyne students who are making up courses). We may be spending too little onadvertising. We probably need to conclude more articulation agreements toimprove our transfer enrollment and that may require changes in therequirements for transfer credit in different programs. There is nothing simpleabout this.

Marcia Ruwe also noted the presence of a Student Life-Academic AffairsCommittee which is looking at the retention problem. There seems to be anincrease in the number of withdrawals. We do not have a good set of exitinterviews on this. Eulas Boyd and Dennis DePerro are the Academic Affairsrepresentatives on this committee.


(a) Ratification of Profs. Frederick Glennon, Edward Judge, and EvelynMonsay who were elected on 27 September 1995 by the Curriculum Committee tocompose the CET (Core Evaluation Team) in the decennial review of the CoreCurriculum. .

Unanimously passed.

(b) Permission for the Curriculum Committee to revise its Schedule ofAcademic Department Evaluations because of the one-year delay in beginning theCore Revision..

Since Interim Chair Giunta was not sure of what his committee was asking,this matter was withdrawn pending clarification by the CurriculumCommittee.

(c) Resolved that a referendum item should be presented to the facultyin substantially the same form only once per school year.

Mike Schramm spoke on behalf of this matter. Last semester following thefailure of a vote regarding the voting procedures for the ARPP committee, itappeared that some individuals were not willing to accept the faculty' s vote.It appears unseemly to submit referenda until you get what you want. He alsoobjected (re: item 'd' below) to some discussion that the Executive Board andits President might simply appoint an ad hoc committee to perform the sameduties as the body which failed to receive sufficient votes by theSenate.

John Consler indicated his support for this matter since faculty shouldn'thave to vote more than once on issues each year (a question which is differentthan possible technical difficulties in identifying who is/is not a member ofthe Senate). Mike Miller objected to hearing from one faculty member anexplanation that the failure of the item passing was because faculty were "tooapathetic". Vinny Hevern expressed his strong disagreement with this resolutionbecause it conflicts with the Constitution's mandate to the ExecutiveBoard to submit to the Faculty items in its best judgment are in need ofaction. Since the Executive Board is not constantly sending items back to theFaculty, this proposal addresses an anomalous situation. However, if this bodywere to return to the Faculty with a matter that they clearly rejected, then wewould be acting irresponsibly. Mike preferred not to accept a "friendlyamendment" to add "unless there was a compelling technical reason to do so".Mike Miller raised the need for the Executive Board to educate the facultyfirst regarding why issues are being proposed to the faculty which thisproposition would promote.

In the absence of another member doing so, Secretary Hevern submitted thisresolution as a motion which was seconded. David Lloyd's "friendly amendment"was not agreed to by Mike Schramm. Vinny Hevern objected to his own motion andsuggested that such a vote would be unconstitutional unless ratified by therest of the faculty. John Consler countered that this is more like the "BarnettRule" which is a very strong recommendation to ourselves about how to act.Susan Behuniak objected to this resolution because it fails to acknowledge ourown propensity to commit errors as we learn our jobs (though acknowledging themoral commitment of the Board to being guided by its thrust.) Mark Karperrelinquished the chair to the President-elect and spoke against the motion asgrounded in a set of anomalous circumstances last year vis-a-vis communicatingwith the faculty.

The motion was rejected 14 votes against with one abstention.

(d) Resolved that the Executive Board should consider itself bound bythe results of a referendum.

This motion was withdrawn by its sponsor.

(e) Resolved that the Executive Board request of the Security Officethat it develop a procedure designed to ensure that vehicles parked in theFaculty/Staff lot (and bearing F/S stickers) are operated by members of theFaculty or Staff.

Secretary Hevern put this motion on the floor (eventually seconded). MikeSchramm explained that faculty and staff have gotten more than one sticker fortheir car and giving them to their children who go to LeMoyne. He referred to aremark of former Pres. O'Connell who said upwards of 900 stickers weredistributed for ca. 250-300 faculty/staff. John Consler noted that we may loseca. 50 spots in the back within the next two years with certain plans beingformulated for improving the north side of the campus. Further, the impact ofboth successful graduate programs in business and education is exacerbatingthis. Hevern suggested that perhaps the Security Office might offer differenttypes of stickers with only one for use behind the school. LaVerne Higginspointed out this could be done by the use of hanging parking tags which aretransferable across cars. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 14 in favorwith one abstention.

(f) Resolved that the Executive Board request of the Budget Committeethat it perform a comparative review of salaries that account for the fact thatLe Moyne is now a 2M institution, as opposed to a 2B.

Secretary Hevern moved this item. Mike Schramm, its author, explained thelanguage here: the addition of graduate programs moves us to a different"Carnegie" categorization of the college which the AVP noted may not have beenofficially changed yet (we must grant about 40 or 50 masters degrees before itswitches from a bachelor's to a comprehensive institution). The AVP also notedthat the comparative study done by M.K. Collins which we use for planning, etc.doesn't make the distinction mentioned here. Finally, this is an item whichmight be coordinated by the Budget Committee. President Karper turned the chairover to the President-elect to speak in favor of tabling this motion until wecan gain greater information from M. K. Collins about the list she haddeveloped. The resolution was withdrawn at the request of the Senate Presidentto permit clarification of the comparison table of salaries we now use.

(g) Resolved: That department chairs and program directors compilereports documenting the impact of budget cuts on academicprogramming.

President-elect Behuniak submitted this resolution. She noted that it isimportant for us to begin documenting the impact of the various changes in thebudget upon educational and other efforts here, e.g., papers withdrawn fromconferences, etc. This is not meant to create a "gripe list" but to create abroad documentary basis for requesting priority consideration when monies dobecome available. This is all especially true in light of the 25% cuts which wehave been living with the last year. The responsibility to detaildepartmental/program impacts would fall on chairs and program directors. Wherewe would go from there is unclear. The intention is not to make such a reportavailable only internally, e.g., to Board of Trustee subcommittees. DavidLloyd supported this general notion and felt that it would not be a negativeaction to get these data. Michael Miller noted that such a report mightactually show things as worse than they currently appear. Nancy Ring suggestedthese data be committed to the Faculty Senate Executive Board who would serveto tabulate the submissions. Sue Behuniak offered to do such tabulation. JohnMcMahon noted some documentary form would need to be drawn up to solicit commondata across departments. Yielding the chair, Mark Karper expressed concerndespite support for this resolution that we not be perceived as too negative.He believes that an Open Forum on the budget needs to be held soon. He recallsthat we have had a net gain of 2 faculty members this year and that 3departments received additional staffing. Hence, even in tough times, LMC hascontinued to provide resources for our teaching efforts. It is important thatthis not become a "witch hunt" to convince ourselves that everything is fallingapart. We do a lot of things very well. Yet, since we do not know what theseacross-the-board cuts are causing us to do, we need these data to make informedinput to the budgeting process. John Consler spoke of the cautionary notionthat we may not have actually needed some of the additions of personnel orresources in the areas they were brought on board. John is concerned that we donot become glib over issues which, due to required changes in programstructure, etc. in the College over the period ahead may serve to cause greatfriction within the faculty. We have difficult and wrenching matters to dealwith over the years ahead. Vinny Hevern quoted the AVP's remarks in the Minutesof the March 15, 1995 meeting which stated that we would not go lower in ourbudget for this year than what had been budgeted last year and that cuts (of21%) were already of a "dangerously low" nature and the College would beimpaired with further cuts. Nancy Ring supported the need for us to gaingreater amounts of data for informed decision-making. David Lloyd is veryconcerned that negative data not be make available to any general public. MarkKarper observed that the Executive Board will have to be asked what to do withthese data if the leadership receives them; caution is in order since these areopen meetings. Mike Miller noted that documentation would need to be keptsecure for use later. The AVP suggested that the data be conveyed to theAcademic Dean, particularly to guide her in drawing up operating budgets. JohnConsler noted that the Budget Committee had asked for data today from chairsand this might be what we needed. Mark Karper suggested this might not be whatis called for in this resolution.

The question was called. The vote in support was 16 in favor and 0 opposedand 0 abstentions.

(h) An ad hoc task force to be appointed to makerecommendations within a month to the Faculty regarding how both the proceduresand language of the Senate Constitution should deal withthe administrative changes introduced by the new office of AcademicDean.

After talking with Chuck Kelly about these matters, Secretary Hevernsubmitted this resolution and noted: we do not have the right to change theConstitution unilaterally yet we do need to take into account the majorchange in the administrative structure of the College with the introduction ofthe Academic Dean. We need to bring the documents (Constitution and By Laws) upto date. Because representation by the AVP has always been on a non-votingbasis, Hevern suggested that we explore extending these same status to theAcademic Dean. There are also issues about who the Senate President reports towith resolutions and what happens if there is a veto or negative response to aSenate resolution. Hence the ad hoc committed suggested here make arecommendation(s) to the Executive Committee what to do. If possible, it wouldbe helpful that this be done by the next meeting and, at the latest, by thefirst meeting of the Spring. This resolution was accepted by a unanimousvote.

The meeting was adjourned with gratitude at 9:25 PM.

Respectfully submitted

Vincent W. Hevern, S.J.


Nov 8, 1995

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