Minutes of the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate
February 12, 1997

Members present: L. Arnault, I. Barnello, S. Behuniak, J. Bogdan, M.K. Collins, J. Consler, C. Donn, A. Eppolito, J. Glancy, M. MacDonald, J. McMahon, B. Mitchell, K. Nash, O. Ocampo, H. O'Leary, N. Ring, B. Shefrin, A. Vetrano, E. Ryan, S.J., ex officio. Others present: M. Ruwe, M. Miller, F. Glennon, D. Smith, C. Giunta, J. Simonis

President Susan Behuniak called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

I. Minutes of November 20, 1996
These were approved as presented.

II. Officers' Reports

A. President's Report (See attachment A)
Of note is the decision to hold a combined Executive Board Meeting and Full Senate Meeting on April 16.

III. AVP & Dean

Contracts and contract letters will not be distributed on March 1 this year, but will be delayed until late April after the last Trustee meeting on April 25-26. Because the process to calculate and release the February 20 retroactive pay got bogged down due to poor recordkeeping on hiring dates and salary histories, the 1997/98 budget will not be presented to the Trustees at their February 21 meeting. In the future, the Trustees will meet in October, February, and May, with the budget presentation at the February meeting, and contracts to follow on March 1.

Evaluations for merit for associate and full professors was done without realizing there were other documents and conflicting information on what amount the raises should be. Because the data on eligibility and the size of the raises could not be tracked with certainty, the raises will be $1,000 for 1996/97. The 1997/98 contracts should follow the new plan that is being set up by Fr. Ryan and Dean Ruwe. Chairs must be part of the process. Fr. Ryan apologized for the mix-up and asked that these matters appear in a future revision of the Faculty Handbook.

IV. Questions on Committee Reports (See Attachments A - D)

Elections: J. McMahon announced that the recertification process is complete. Eight adjuncts will be certified voters bringing the senate’s voting rolls to 134 (from 144 in Fall 1996). Some issues have arisen from the recent recertification process that need to be examined, such as time period for service required of adjuncts. He also forewarned us about elections for this Spring. Nomination petitions for officers will go out February 24 and will be due March 5. Election of officers will occur between March 7 - 19. The rest of the senate elections will be done after Easter Break.

V. Old Business

A. Equity Resolutions

S. Behuniak explained the senate’s two options of response to an AVP veto as upholding the veto and overriding and sending it back as a faculty referendum. The AVP then explained his actions

AVP Ryan thanked the Senate for the extra time it granted him to work on this issue. Since he was not privy to the discussions leading to the April 1996 document, he needed to study these issues and their consequences very closely.

As background information, he explained that he and Fr. Mitchell were called to Le Moyne, and thus steered from retirement, by the Provincial to help Le Moyne College enter the twenty-first century as a healthy institution. The Trustees have asked them to look closely at the financial situation of an institution whose greatest expense is salaries and fringe benefits. At 62% of all expenses, this is far above the model figure of 38% to 45%. Also factored into his decisions is the call from the trustees to bring the student:faculty ratio from 16:1 to 18:1. Because Fr. Mitchell has expressed his preference for a small, well-paid faculty over a larger poorly-paid faculty, the ratio has become a focus. So when the equity referendum vote came in and he had to respond, he felt he had to veto some of them. To not do so, would have meant that the policies would have had to have been put into effect. His vetoes of three of the items is part and parcel from his understanding of a provisional veto. He does not disagree, but rather needs more information and input. The Senate must revise the outdated Faculty Handbook and work out these issues with him. He is collecting data on other institutions and is open to revisiting these items.

He vetoed referendum item A, which calls for a uniform course load for faculty, because the contracts of all business faculty would have to be changed. The Faculty Handbook states course load shall be “up to 8 courses.” If resolution was approved by him, the load would immediately drop, or increase, to 7.

Item B, which calls for a reduced course load for department chairs, is inherently unfair and very costly. All chairs are not equal. A department with three faculty and no majors should not get the same course load agreement as a chair of a department with 19 faculty and many majors. He placed the cost of course load reductions (CLR) for just chairs (using 7 courses and per cent of salary) at $380,000 in 1996/97.

Item G, which allows for applications for CLR for other administrative work of the faculty, was vetoed because he felt money could be better spent on low level administrators and/or secretaries to assist faculty in these jobs as well as in their jobs as chairs. As overly dependent on tuition as Le Moyne is, we must watch expenses.

The lengthy discussion that ensued surrounded the following.

An over-ride would be a wasted exercise, since the President agrees with the AVP. The science faculty (see attachment E) submitted their reaction to the AVP’s written reservations to equity ballot item D. They do not want a three-hour lab to be counted as one contact hour. The language of the original resolution was deliberate in its use of “courses” and not credit hours. Pressed to interpret the resolution as the Senate had intended and not to exclude the sciences, the AVP provisionally vetoed this item. The vetoes are not absolute, but rather provisional and to be finalized once data is gathered.
There are three issues competing with each other: equity, accepted practice, and the bottom line of finances.
AVP admitted that equity, quality, and excellence won out in the quest for the salary adjustments of Feb. 20, but it was not an easy fight. Some trustees are CEOs and thus bottom- line people.
Data from other institutions may show that others have had to deal with offsets to get higher salaries or lower course loads. Teaching ratios sometimes were increased to get the other two.
Should not data collection include an administrator to student ratio? Are department chairs to be seen as parasites of the institution through this focus on course load and faculty ratios? Administrators cost money, too.
Data should be inclusive by pointing out scholarship requirements of departments. The cost of CLR for chairs (45 courses) was placed at the low end at $90,000 with the truth lying somewhere in between this figure and the $380,000 of the Dean A formulaic approach to course load that stipulates scholarship production (John Carroll University) is appalling
The assumption (in the calculations of the cost of CLR) that all of a faculty member’s salary goes towards teaching is wrong and fails to acknowledge that faculty do research, service, and administrative, even clerical, work.
AVP Ryan is committed to revisiting these items that he vetoed and approved “with reservations” once data comes in.
Concern over the meaning and treatment of a “provisional veto” was left unresolved and diffused by a consensus that the Senate can revisit this whole process again regardless of whether it upholds the veto or the proposal.
If the Senate over-rides, it does not have to do the referendum right away. Upholding the veto means that the AVP cannot reverse his position.

The Senate met its obligation to call a meeting within 20 days of the veto. With the assurance that the AVP will share the data with the Committee on ARPP, the group agreed to table this matter.

B. Shefrin moved and A. Vetrano seconded the motion to table this issue of response to the AVP veto on equity issues to the first Executive Board meeting in the Fall of 1997 with the research to proceed. The motion passed 18 - 0.

B. Minus Grades

Resolved, the ARPP Committee proposal on altering the grading system bepresented to the full faculty senate for a referendum vote requiring a simple majority of all eligible voters.

The members did not think this issue of adding minus grades should be voted on by the Executive Board before hearing from the entire faculty. This motion was taken off the table and moved by C. Donn and seconded by K. Nash. It was approved by a vote of 18 to 0.

VI. New Business
A. Appointments to new committees

There were 20 people who stepped forward to work on these committees--an impressive number considering how busy people are.

1. Alcohol Task Force: M. A. Donnelly, R. Flower, and J. Duncan were nominated by S. Behuniak.

2. Connections Committee: M. DiTullio, R. Wright, W. Morris, and J. Discordia were nominated by S. Behuniak.

N. Ring moved and M. MacDonald seconded a motion to approve the above nominations. The motion passed 18 - 0.

B. Curriculum Committee

1. Subcommittee on MS.Ed in Adult Education
H. O’Leary moved the following resolution. A. Vetrano seconded it.

Resolved: That the Executive Board approve the formation of a subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee to scrutinize the proposal for a MS.Ed in Adult Education to consist of the Academic Dean, James J. Simonis or an alternate librarian at Le Moyne, and the following faculty, who have agreed to serve: Antonio Eppolito (Education), Leonard Marsh, FSC (Humanities), John Freie (Social Science), Sherilyn Smith (Natural/Quantitative Science), and Mary Ann Donnelly (Management). A current student/recent graduate will be named later, perhaps chosen by the subcommittee.

It passed by a vote of 18 - 0.

2. Creative Writing Minor
H. O’Leary moved the following resolution. J. Consler seconded it.

Resolved: that the Faculty Senate approve adding to the program of the English Department a concentration and a minor in Creative Writing, passed by the Curriculum Committee on 9/16/96.

A discussion of cost of this program ensued and the following issues were clarified.
The $800 for travel, while it struck some as “double-dipping”, is considered by the Dean as “administrative” travel, rather than scholarly travel. The director of the Integral Honors Program confirmed the need for such travel for directors of academic programs.
A director is not yet appointed.
We are voting this night on a program proposal with no costs attached to it. The omission of budget data by D. Lloyd was an honest mistake, as he was thinking of “big-ticket items” as what was called for in the documentation. The deadline for the 1997/98 college catalog will be missed if not approved at this meeting.
“No cost” means no course load reductions to the Dean. When the Curriculum Committee passes items, they must go to budget to be analyzed. The onus is on Finance, not Curriculum.

Since it was thought that this program has merit and that it needs the protection of having documentation reflecting its budget, and since not being in the catalog will not necessarily hurt the program (witness the Women’s Studies Minor), J. Consler moved to table this resolution to the March meeting awaiting a recommended revision on costs. B. Shefrin seconded the motion. It passed by a vote of 14 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention.

3. ALANA Program
H. O’Leary moved the following. K. Nash seconded it.

Resolved: that the Faculty Senate approve an African, Latin, Asian, Native American (ALANA) Studies Minor to begin in the 1997/98 academic year, passed by the Curriculum Committee on 12/9/96.

The discussion raised the following issues.
Is it not a contradiction to support a new source of course load reductions (CLR) when we are under pressure to rein them in?
AVP addressed criticism on the discrepancy between his writing in support of this program and vetoing course load reductions in the equity document by averring his support for diversity.
There is a contradiction between lack of support for a CLR for ALANA and support for CLR for department chairs. If diversity is valued, then cost shouldn’t be an issue.
Cost is not the responsibility of the Curriculum Committee, but rather to pass on curricular issues, as long as budget is realistic. On the other hand, the procedure for new program initiatives calls for a look at the financial implications.
Ideological support for the program was coupled with concern that we have the faculty prepared to teach in it. Concern was expressed that the program might fail, which would be worse than not having one approved. We must make sure it can succeed if passed and avoid alienating students of color.
The AVP stated that the Strategic Plan promises to increase diversity.
Trusting the AVP to promote diversity is fine, but some do not trust the actuality of recruiting faculty and students of color.

K Nash moved to table the resolution and B. Mitchell seconded it. They then withdrew their motion to allow a discussion of how to proceed. J. Consler moved to table to the March 19 meeting. A. Eppolito seconded it. The motion passed by a vote of 15 - 1 - 1 (one member was out of the room).

4. Academic Support Center Proposal
H. O’Leary moved the following resolution. It was seconded by J. Glancy.

Resolved: that the Faculty Senate approve the Academic Support Program Proposal in its Revised, Fall 1996 form, passed by the Curriculum Committee on 2/4/97.

No one was present from the Academic Support Center (ASC) to support this issue. Some had procedural problems with this and also with the entire process from the beginning and that there is not anything the Senate can do to stop something already in existence. Even so M. Miller urged the group to vote it down. He does not believe this staff should be doing academic advising. He also objected to the “job creation” aspect of the entire plan; it is too heavy on personnel. Dean Ruwe pointed out that several positions were existing positions and that the area of ADA is the one place that potentially calls for additional staffing.

Affected departments and other representatives will be invited to attend the next meeting to speak to some of the issues, such as staffing and hidden costs of using Math and English faculty.

Reference was made to last summer’s ad hoc committee to examine the ASC. This group was charged by S. Behuniak, not to stop the move to the Library, but to look at who the instructors were, how they fit into their departments, and try to figure out what the points of contention were in the proposal.

B. Shefrin moved to table the resolution and L. Arnault seconded it. The motion passed by a vote of 18 - 0.

C. Faculty Handbook Revisions

Sue Behuniak introduced this discussion. She suggested the following for consideration.

This issue continually comes up between the officers and the AVP. There are areas that lack clarity, there are issues of language, missing issues, and issues that need to be adjusted.
Some work has already been done, e.g. rank and tenure section. Other revisions are in progress, e.g. PR&W is now at work on benefits and travel.
AVP has suggested an ad hoc committee be formed, however it seems that PR&W is the most suitable committee to oversee future work
The AVP and Dean should request which sections need revision
PR&W may delegate some revisions to other committees where appropriate
PR&W should submit drafts to the administration before it sends to Executive Board to try to smooth the process
The new document needs a mechanism for revision
Both the faculty and the administration need the advice of counsel Yet this should be a cooperative venture.

AVP Ryan sees a need for input from the administration
To ensure continuity, there needs to be an ad hoc group whose membership would not change through the entire project
There was disagreement on the origins of the document.

In conclusion, there is no resolution to describe at this point, but PR&W should begin their task in earnest.

D. Ad hoc Computing Committee (M. Miller)

J. Bogdan moved the following resolution and S. Behuniak seconded it.

Whereas: the College Computing Committee has not met in the past year and a half, and so there has been no official channel for faculty input regarding the changes in Le Moyne’s computing environment during that time,

Resolved: that the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate create an Ad Hoc Faculty Computing Committee, charged with soliciting faculty input and making recommendations about the future of academic computing at Le Moyne.

It was clarified that this committee will recommend to the Executive Board. A brief discussion reiterated the frustration and anger over the lack of meetings and last summer’s “runaway with the classrooms.” The resolution passed by a vote of 16 - 0.

Adjournment came at 10:20 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Inga H. Barnello
February 24, 1997
Attachments: A -

Report to the Faculty Senate Executive Board
February 12, 1997 Meeting
Submitted by Sue Behuniak, Faculty Senate President

(1) I received a letter from President Mitchell dated Dec. 10,1996 thanking us for our November resolution (which thanked him forhis leadership concerning benefits.)(2) Two weeks ago, President Mitchell contacted me aboutappointing, as soon as possible, a search committee for the positionof Vice President of Institutional Advancement. Three trustees, V.P.Gen Saya, and two faculty will serve. We agreed on Mary MacDonald,Chair of the Research and Development Committee and BernardArogyaswamy, Chair of the Business Dept., as the faculty reps.(3) All new business that requires Senate action this term mustbe listed on the agenda of our March 19 meeting. We will follow theusual procedure of listing the items as “New Business” fordiscussion. On April 16, we will have a combined Full Senate andExecutive Board meeting. During the meeting, we will complete actionon the items now listed as “Old Business,” and we will then wrap upthe year with reports and refreshments.


Committee on Academic Relations, Policies and Procedures, Cliff Donn, Chair

The committee has met on November 19, December 5, andJanuary 30. Our next meeting is scheduled for February 20.

The committee has approved catalogue languageto the effect that any instance of academic dishonesty(not just those subsequent to the first) will make studentssubject to suspension or dismissal. The wording has beenforwarded to Senate President Susan Behuniak for action.

After a general discussion of the issue of eligibilityfor the Dean's List for Continuous Learning students, Cliff Donnagreed to attempt a draft proposal to be circulated to the othermembers of the committee.

The Committee has received a request from the HistoryDepartment to insert language in the catalogue dealing with theissue of the use of internet sources in research papers. TheCommittee agreed to discuss this matter at a future meeting.

The subcommittees for the evaluation of administrativepersonnel for this year will be: Academic Dean - Kathleen Nash,Registrar - Cliff Donn, Director of the Library - Mike Schramm.Each is seeking two additional members for their committees.

We continue to discuss the issue of academic standing andwhat changes, if any, should be made. We anticipate putting aproposal on this matter before the Executive Board later in thesemester.

We are considering a proposal on "residency" requirementsfor transfer students. The Administration is anxious to includethis matter in next year's catalog so the committee will betrying to reach a final decision at our next meeting.

The "Librarianship" proposal continues to be underconsideration and a subcommittee of Gretchen Pearson, KathleenNash, and Fred Glennon is to report back to the group on this matter

Report of the Curriculum Committee

The Curriculum Committee offers 3 resolutions to be taken upas new business (and tabled for vote next time). They reflectaction taken on three programs during l996-97.

1. Resolved that the Faculty Senate approve adding to theprogram of the English Department a Concentration/Minor in CreativeWriting. [Passed by the Committee, 9/16/96]
2. Resolved that the Faculty Senate approve an African,Latin, Asian, Native American (ALANA) Studies Minor to begin inthe 1997-98 academic year. [Passed by the Committee, 12/9/96]
3. Resolved that the Faculty Senate approve the AcademicSupport Program proposal in its Revised, Fall, 1996 form. [Passedby the Committee, 2/4/97]

We also request ratification of the proposed membership on aSub-committee of the Curriculum Committee, formed to review therevised proposal for a MS. Ed in Adult Education (received by theCurriculum Committee on 1/21/97). The following colleagues haveagreed to serve: Education-Antonio M. Eppolito; Humanities-LeonardMarsh, FSC; Social Science-John Freie; Natural/QuantitativeScience-Sherilyn Smith; Management-Mary Ann Donnelly; Library-JamesJ. Simonis or an alternate professional librarian. They would agreeon a chair and select a current student or recent alum for theircommittee.

IMPORTANT REMINDERS (as also carried recently with theweekly mailings to Department/Program Chairs)
1. To meet the College Catalog--and Fall, 1997 AcademicSchedule printing deadline (this Spring it is one and the samedate):Course proposals/changes/deletions must be delivered by 4 p.m.Tuesday, February 11 to RH 207. They will be circulated as usualand added to the Agenda (already in circulation) for the Committeemeeting of 2/25/97. There is no Committee meeting on 2/18/97, ofcourse.
2. In a memo of 11/25/96, the Curriculum Committee requestedresponses from Program/Department Chairs on the issue: "Whichcourses constitute THE MAJOR in our discipline?" To allow time fordepartmental discussion, the due date was set for the Spring: DUE BY2/14/97! Please return the Graduation Requirement checklistprovided, highlighted to show which courses really constitute themajor in your field, AND your response to the attached survey--bothsigned by the Chair/Director. [You may recall that the issue arosein connection with granting transfer credit for a Le Moyne degree.]

Thank you for your cooperation in meeting these deadlines.

Harriet O'Leary, for the Committee

Elections Committee, John McMahon, Chair

Two items of EC business are currently in process.

1) The nominating deadline for the Division 4 representative to the Professional Rights and Welfare Committee has been extended until Tuesday 2/11 at noon. No nominations had been received by the earlier deadline (2/6).

2) Eight requests for adjunct voting recertification have been received by the Faculty Senate President and forwarded to the EC chair. (The deadline for receipt of the completed application was 2/7.) The EC will meet with the Faculty Senate President on 2/11 to verify the applications and to discuss the process, its results and the implications for future recertification efforts.

_____________________________________________________________________Finance Committee report for 2/12, Jennifer A. Glancy

The Board of Trustees has reaffirmed its commitment to the facultyand to the faculty salary plan, as well as to other employees of theCollege, by voting to disburse funds for salaries in accordance withthe recommendation of President Mitchell, a proposal originallyadvanced by the College Budget Committee. I would like to thankMichael Curtin, Chair of the Board of Trustees, for his support;I would also like to thank Robert Mitchell, S.J., Edmund Ryan, S.J.,Susan Behuniak, the members of the Faculty Senate Finance Committee,and especially Mary K. Collins.

We anticipate balancing the budget for 1997-98. President Mitchellhas taken a lead in establishing priorities for the budget, whichare (in order), fully funding the salary plans, a contingency fund,and funding depreciation in accordance with state regulations.


The committee has met January 27 and February 11. Inaddition, three members of the committee (Ed Baumgartner, GregLepak, and Kathleen Nash) attended meetings of the college-wideFringe Benefits committee on January 15 and February 10.

We have drafted a travel policy and have revisedthe handbook section on scholarship benefits. At our next meetingon February 26 (12:30 PM, probably Foery Conference Room), we willdiscuss revisions to the section on retirement. We will alsoconsider recommendations about health insurance, dental plans, andoptional benefits (e.g., car and home insurance packages) to forwardto the college-wide committee.

We welcome guests at our meetings and urge colleagues tooffer input, suggestions, and concerns on any of these issues.Divisional representatives are glad to share with you the work we havedone and to collect your criticisms for committee consideration. Wehope to circulate completed drafts of the benefits section of thehandbook by mid-March for further discussion and amendment, perhapsin an open forum.

Kathleen S. Nash for the Committee




1. The committee is meeting weekly and continuing work on the Guidelines document.

2. Applications for Summer Stipends are due Feb. 15 and applications for Research and Development grants are due March 1.

3. An E-Z form reimbursement of $22.80 has been made to Vincent Hevern for publication expenses for an article accepted for the journal "Voices: The Art and Science of Psychotherapy."

Submitted by Mary N. MacDonald, Chair, Research and DevelopmentCommittee.

Attachment E is not included in the HTML format of this document.5

Created: 10/2/97 Updated: 10/2/97