Minutes of the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate
March 19, 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.

Members absent: none

Others present: M. Ruwe, E. Judge, J. Langdon, D. Lloyd, R. Lund, M. Miller, A. Herron, J. Chin

President Susan Behuniak called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.

I. Minutes of February 12, 1997

The minutes were approved with the following corrections. The last sentence in the last paragraph of section III on page one should read, “Fr. Ryan apologized for the mix-up and asked that....” On page 4, section 3, the first bulleted item should read, “under pressure to rein them in?” On page 5, section 4, third paragraph, third sentence, the words “even so” should be deleted from the end of the sentence.

II. Officers' Reports

A. President's Report (See attachment A)

III. AVP Report (given orally)

A. Course Load Reductions

Two awards of funded course load reductions will be available each semester with new criteria. Junior faculty must account for the research that will be conducted. Senior faculty must explain how student learning will be enhanced. In accordance with Middle States, applicants must account for an assessment process. These CLRs will be in the FY98 budget and a call for applications has gone out.

B. Minority Pre-Doctoral Fellowship Program

This program has been approved for funding in the FY99 budget. Lead time is needed to recruit and select departments to participate. An advertisement is expected to be placed in late summer 1997.

C. NYS Budget

Fr. Ryan, D. DePerro, and C. Thomas, and a number of students traveled to Albany on March 18 to lobby the legislators for a piece of the $2 billion surplus. He asks that the Faculty Senate Executive Board consider a resolution at its next meeting that urges the State Legislature to amend the Executive Budget in favor of higher education and in particular CICU schools.

IV. Questions on Committee Reports (See Attachments B - E)

A. Elections

J. McMahon announced the results of the election for Vice President/President Elect with Kathleen Nash the winner of that race. Inga Barnello will serve as Secretary/Treasurer. He distributed a schedule of the upcoming Senate elections. (See Attachment F)

B. Finance

It was pointed out that the salary enhancement plan stems not only from the 1972 figures but also from the 1992 study that P. Blackley presented at a senate meeting on the scale. We are trying to get to a point where we are back up on the list close to Canisius and Scranton. We are using CUPA figures and not Academe figures because they contain business salaries in aggregate with other disciplines. An objection was expressed to the description of this salary enhancement program as one for arts and sciences faculty. Enhancements are for anyone found to be below scale, regardless of department, and further, that any description of the program that mentions that it is not for business faculty is incorrect and harmful. In fact one business faculty member was found to be below scale and was given an adjustment.

C. Curriculum

H. O’Leary spoke to the issue of new programs and the creation and functioning of the subcommittee on new programs that is under the College Planning Committee (CPC). The Curriculum Committee would like to work closely with the subcommittee so that all parties are aware of what is going on at the same time and avoid duplication of work. She asked that a member of her committee sit on the subcommittee with voice, but no vote. This is one possibility among many. When new academic programs originate from departments, proposals are brought to curriculum who then creates a subcommittee to study them. The Academic Dean also makes a statement about the program’s appropriateness to the mission of the College. Would the new subcommittee be taking over the work or duplicating the work of the Curriculum Committee? She asked for discussion and clarification.

Fr. Ryan responded that he agreed with the suggestion that a curriculum committee member sit on the CPC subcommittee for new programs. He objected to the idea that the new group on new programs be a subcommittee of curriculum because sometimes new programs can be from student life; its function is broader than curriculum. The CPC looks at the entire institution and potential new programs. The history of this idea goes back to the summer of 1996 and a request from the Senate President over concern with the Masters in Adult Education proposal coming “out of the blue.” The department that is to house a new program idea coming from outside the department should have a hand at the outset, and a close working relationship between Curriculum and College Planning Committees should insure this. The two groups should meet to discuss their responsibilities, their relationship to each other, and the processes to be followed.

D. Professional Rights & Welfare Committee

The distributed draft of section vi of the faculty handbook is a working draft and all are invited to submit ideas to K. Nash. The 80% college contribution to health premiums is a wishful figure and in fact, K. Nash prefers an equal dollar amount, but PR&W are not at a point of making a recommendation yet. See her committee report (Attachment E) for the formulae they are considering.

On the subject of faculty travel and in light of the Senate President’s report revealing that the distribution of the money will be even across departments, N. Ring asked which is the policy--what is in the handbook currently or the $870 per person. S. Behuniak responded that she has an agreement with the AVP that, except for the $6,000 going to the Dean’s fund, all full-time faculty will have equal access to the travel fund. The handbook policy is still in effect concerning limits and percentages for reimbursement. Those traveling to conferences to present a paper should be reimbursed in full in 1997/98 within the constraints of the money. This agreement is only one that gets us on track of finding our way to “fully funded” travel policy. “Fully funded” means that we mapped out what money is needed approximately ($108,000). We never knew in the past what was being spent and what therefore should be restored when it was cut. One conference per person is what we are moving toward within reason. It is expected that all of the $108,000 will be spent on faculty travel.

Concern that the officers and the AVP and Dean have been working on a plan separate from PR & W, was allayed by a clarification that the only plan agreed on is on how to allocate. Access to the money is the only agreement thus far. The process is yet to be determined by PR&W and the Dean’s Office. Section VI of the handbook and its revision is the process by which we go forward. K. Nash did not see it this way thus far. J. Consler pointed out that all the handbook does is establish a way of allocating amounts and that a process may be beyond the purview of PR&W.

At this point, the AVP reasserted his opinion that the faculty and the administration should be working more closely together on the same committee on the revision of the handbook. S. Behuniak responded that she wishes it to stay within PR&W with open lines of communication to the administration. At points of dissent, decisions will have to be made. It was acknowledged that the faculty have a right to proceed this way with PR&W at the helm and that both the faculty and the administration understand that benefits agreed upon by the faculty senate may not be accepted by the administration and trustees. Information will continue to be exchanged and senate meetings is a forum for this.

On the issue of tuition benefits the following issues were raised.

  • The fact that there are no limitations on spouses in terms of number of courses, matriculated, non-matriculated, space in the classroom in this revision is a proposed change.
  • Currently, Human Resources offers different view of limitations than Continuous Learning.
  • Are foster children included? At one time they were.
  • “Space available” should not be a restriction for matriculated students.
  • The current restriction to undergraduate courses
  • An expanded tuition remission exchange program was discussed. This is a very easy program to administer and costs $250 initially and then $200 per year.
  • The personnel office seems to view FACHEX as a burden.

    V. Old Business

    A. Creative Writing Minor Proposal

    Resolved: that the Faculty Senate approve adding to the program of the English Department a concentration and a minor in Creative Writing, as passed by the Curriculum Committee on 9/16/96, and amended with a budget on February 25.

    This item was taken off the table. After no discussion, it passed unanimously by a vote of 18 to 0 with no abstentions.

    B. Academic Support Center Proposal

    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.

    This motion was taken off the table and voted on without discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 9 in favor, 2 opposed, and 7 abstentions.

    C. ALANA Studies Program Proposal

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

    This motion was removed from the table and discussed at length. A letter from the proposal’s originator, J. Chin, was sent to the chair of the curriculum committee requesting that the ALANA Studies Program Proposal be withdrawn. Although in favor of ALANA and hopeful of an eventual implementation, J. Chin is concerned that the resources are not available to revise, further develop, direct, and implement the program. Curriculum does not wish to withdraw it. The entire committee thinks it should go through despite the problems because of its importance to the College. In light of the fact that the program proposal has some curricular issues to work out and personnel and funding resources to garner for its implementation, and in light of the overwhelming enthusiasm in the room for an ALANA Program, it was moved by B. Mitchell to table this motion until resubmitted to the curriculum committee. M. MacDonald seconded the motion. This motion to table passed by a vote of 14 - 2 - 2. Following the vote S. Behuniak called for all to help with the development of this fine program idea with our time and resources in the future and support Prof. Chin.

    VI. New Business

    A. Diversity Resolution (Bogdan)

    Whereas, the proposed ALANA Studies Program currently lacks sufficient personnel to fully implement the Program, and

    Whereas, the College has lost two African-American faculty members in the last year, and

    Whereas, the Minority Pre-Doctoral Fellowship had been temporarily suspended, be it

    Resolved, that the Faculty Senate Executive Board urges the Administration to develop concrete programs and procedures for the hiring and retention of faculty of color.

    J. Bogdan moved the above resolution and L. Arnault seconded it. The discussion was begun by the question of what can and cannot be done by the administration to implement the spirit of this resolution. The AVP responded by a statement that he wished to clear up facts surrounding the second “whereas.” He then responded to specifics in a letter from Clarence Taylor to Marcia Ruwe resigning his position, in which the AVP was mentioned, which Fr. Ryan felt were inaccurate and hurtful toward the administration. Stating that the Senate had the letter before the administration and that no one made an attempt to discuss its contents, he thought that the faculty had behaved improperly and misjudged the AVP and the Dean on this issue.

    At the conclusion of his defense, the AVP asked the Academic Dean to respond to charges in the letter. Dean Ruwe defended her actions in the negotiation between her and Prof. Taylor that led him to resign his post rather than return here after his Fulbright year by pointing out that when faculty are on sabbatical it is not usual to contact them in November. She did contact him earlier than usual when requested to do by the department chair. She does not think she was lackadaisical; an honest effort was made to bring him back. She stated that we were not able to come up with what C. Taylor wanted and she regrets that. She would welcome a discussion to work out procedures and policy for special cases and that “behind the doors” is not the way to handle these.

    Executive Board members, who had not seen the letter, responded that for one thing they felt blindsided by this and for another thing did not want to hear this aired in public. S. Behuniak stated that she had received a copy of the letter from C. Taylor, but did not distribute it to the Executive Board. She showed it to only the two other officers and did not feel it should be distributed since C. Taylor sent it to her with no instructions or request.

    The discussion then moved on to the issue of market driven salaries and how to manage and negotiate them. While we cannot have a policy that regulates salaries by establishing premium pay for minority faculty, we can have one that calls for and sets parameters for market driven salaries. J. Langdon spoke to the C. Taylor case as one in which we underestimated the market and how this will cost the College in terms of recruiting a replacement, if such a person (African-American PhD in history) can be found. He also spoke to the issue of retention by pointing out that the cost to retain a faculty member in a competitive market goes up as time goes on, as life insurance premiums go up as the policyholder ages. E. Judge suggested that the College is too passive in its approach and that one proactive measure might be to approach minority faculty each year or so to see what compensation issues exist.

    Among the other points made were

  • Affirmative Action procedures in general are not followed here, by and large.
  • Searches conducted improperly should be held up.
  • Commitment to diversity means doing what it takes and recognizing special situations.
  • Can the Affirmative Action office help with retention of minority employees?
  • There is a lack of awareness on behalf of the administration of how much Le Moyne needed the participation of the two African-American faculty members that left and that the cost is immeasurable.
  • Commitment to diversity means doing what it takes and recognizing exceptional situations. We must enact proactivity.
  • Retention involves more than money; people have to feel welcome and like it here.

    C. Donn moved to table this resolution until the next meeting and K. Nash seconded the motion. The motion passed 18 - 0 - 0.

    Adjournment came at 9:46 PM.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Inga H. Barnello
    April 2, 1997


    Report to the Faculty Senate Executive Board
    March 19, 1997 Meeting
    Submitted by Sue Behuniak, Faculty Senate President

    We have accomplished many things during the past month (the CLR program has been reinstituted, a referendum vote completed, elections begun, R&T decisions made, a draft for some handbook revisions in progress, some budget decisions made, curricular planning in progress, etc.) and I urge you to read the reports of our standing committees for the details. Well done everyone!

    We’re going to spend some time at the beginning of the meeting on two committee reports. Kathleen Nash will apprise us of some work that Prof. Rights and Welfare has been doing in proposing updates to the handbook. Harriet O’Leary will discuss with us some concerns that Curriculum has in how the Committee on New Programs has been organized and how it fits into our structure.

    I have only one item of substance to present in this report, but it is an item of importance--the future funding of Faculty Travel. (If you want to cut to the chase, see the final paragraph!)

    First a little history: It has been very difficult to accurately ascertain how much we have spent for travel in the past and how much is necessary to “fully fund” our travel program. Estimates between administrative offices have differed and some travel was charged to accounts not designated as “travel.” However, during academic year 1995-96, travel funds were so inadequate that Dean Ruwe, who arrived on campus in the midst of this funding crisis, announced that the usual reimbursement policy could not be followed. Hence, many individuals withdrew from conferences, limited their participation to more affordable conferences, or paid their own way. During the Spring of 1996, I informed the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees of the problems and issues associated with a lack of adequate funding for professional travel. For academic year 1996-97, a policy was implemented where depts.were given travel funding equal to the number of full-time members x $450. Given that this was still an inadequate level of funding, the Executive Bd. instructed me to once again report the problem to the Trustees. When I did so in October they asked me how much money it would take to adequately fund the program. I estimated that $100,000 would be a good beginning, and they seemed to think the sum was reasonable.

    During the last month, I found out that, in fact, faculty travel was already at the $100,000 level. At a recent College Budget Committee meeting, AVP Ryan reported the following approximate breakdown in faculty travel allocation for 1996-97:

    MBA travel program: $21,000
    M.Ed. travel program: $15,000
    Undergraduate faculty travel program: $66,000
    Dean’s Fund: $6,000
    TOTAL: $108,000

    It is therefore clear that the travel funding problem could be resolved in either one of two ways: (1) additional money be added to the travel program, or (2) that the funding be equally divided among faculty (approx. $870 per person).

    I have a commitment from AVP Ryan that for academic year 1997-98, faculty will have equal access to the travel funds. In other words, we will each be entitled to the same amount for an initial trip. The process to be used for applying for funds as well as the process for distributing unspent funds have yet to be determined (but PR&W is working on these processes in conjunction with the Dean and AVP). An announcement of this allocation policy will be forthcoming from the AVP.


    Report to the Faculty Senate Executive Board for 3/19/97
    Committee on Academic Relations, Policies and Procedures

    The committee has met February 20. Our next meetingis scheduled for March 20.

    The Committee has approved language on AcademicForgiveness (which will allow students who have changed majorsto petition to "write off" an earlier semester entirely) andon the Dean's List (which will allow part-time students to beincluded) and has forwarded those proposals to SenatePresident Susan Behuniak for action.

    The Committee considered the issue of use of internetsources in research papers and decided not to recommend theadoption of a college-wide policy or policy statement.

    The subcommittees participating in the Evaluation ofthe Academic Dean, the Director of the Library and theRegistrar continue to meet.

    The Committee discussed a proposal on "residency" requirementsfor transfer students. A number of substantial concerns wereraised and it was decided not to act until the proposal couldbe revised.

    The "Librarianship" proposal will be discussed by thefull committee at its next meeting.

    The Committee has received proposals suggestingchanges in the Monday, Wednesday, Friday class schedule andsuggesting a change in our policy on the scheduling ofathletic events. Those will be added to our agenda.

    Clifford B. Donn


    Report of the Curriculum Committee

    Three resolutions from the Committee were tabled in Februaryfor vote at the March meeting of the Exec Board. On February 25,the Committee approved the budget proposal for the Creative WritingMinor as an amendment to the original proposal. The text of thebudget estimate was sent to members of the Exec Board. We requestthat the voting on the Creative Writing Concentration/Minor includethe budget addition as part of the whole proposal.

    The Core Evaluation Team has conducted four colloquia, eachheld on two successive days, enabling interested faculty, students,staff, and administrators to comment on the issues addressed.

    The Sub-committee studying the MS in Ed.--Adult EducationProposal has met twice. The Committee's Chair is Prof. LeonardMarsh, FSC. The other members are M. Donnelly, A. Eppolito, J. Freie, M. Ruwe, J. Simonis, S. Smith, and a student.

    The Committee would like to bring forward for discussion bythe Board a matter for clarification. What ought to be therelationship between the Curriculum Committee of the Faculty Senateand the newly constituted Committee on New Proposals? [This topicwas inadvertently omitted from the bracketed material announcedunder committee reports on the Agenda.]

    Harriet O'Leary, for the Committee


    Elections Committee, John McMahon, Chair

    Elections Committee Report 3/19/97

    The Elections Committee has the following items to report:

    1) The referendum on minus grades has been defeated

    58 approve
    33 approve
    2 abstentions

    Needed for passage: 66.

    2) The balloting for FacSen President Elect concludes at noon on Wed. March 19. Results will be available after 5:00 PM.

    3) The full schedule for upcoming FacSen committee elections will be distributed to ExecBoard members at the Mar. 19 meeting.


    Finance Committee report for 3/19/97
    Jennifer A. Glancy

    The College Budget Committee has met twice since the last meeting ofthe Faculty Senate Executive Board. The Faculty Senate FinanceCommittee meets today (3/18). We still anticipate that we willsubmit a balanced budget to the Trustees on April 25. Facultymembers will receive their 1997-98 contracts after this meeting. Toreiterate last month's report, President Mitchell has specifiedpriorities for the 1997-98:
    --funding of salary plans
    --inclusion of a presidential contingency fund
    --funding of depreciation to comply with new regulations

    The priorities brought forward by the faculty include:
    --funding of salary plans (included)
    --funding of faculty travel (see report of the President of theFaculty Senate)
    --funding of course-load reductions for research and development(see report of the Chair of Research and Development)
    --funding of minority fellowship for 1998-99, in accordance with theresolution of the faculty senate
    --raise in pay for adjunct faculty members (submitted to Presidentfor consideration)

    Note: Funding of salary plan for faculty includes 2.9% COLA, stepraises, promotion raises, and $180,000 towards "salary enhancement"for faculty members in natural and social sciences and humanities.

    There continues to be some confusion about the salary enhancementplan. In 1992-93, the Trustees approved adjustments to the salaryscale. Two variables were considered in recalibrating the scale:
    --the average salaries of faculty members of various ranks at theCollege in 1972, adjusted for inflation;
    --salaries at peer institutions

    Because of budget difficulties, this recalibrated scale was NOTimplemented. With the salary adjustments of 1996-97 and (we expect)of 1997-98, we have begun to implement the new scale, a process weexpect to conclude with budget of 1998-99.

    At this point, the Financial Services office anticipates that theCollege will have a "surplus" of about half a million dollars at theclose of this fiscal year. We anticipate that this "surplus" willhelp offset depreciation (a concern of the Trustees, especially inlight of recent deficits and the depletion of reserves forexpenditures on physical plant). The faculty would like to note thatalthough our balance of revenues to expenditures is favorable,raises for this year included a 1.3% adjustment for inflation,rather than a full COLA of 2.8%.

    I would welcome any questions about the salary adjustments, the1996-97 budget, or the 1997-98 budget.



    Since the last Executive Board meeting, the committee hasaccelerated its work on the revision of the section of the FacultyHandbook dealing with faculty benefits. In fact, the committee issubmitting a working draft of that section for discussion and inputat the March 19, 1997. We anticipate a creative and challengingdiscussion of some of the more debated portions of the draft.

    Kathleen Nash brought back to the committee Father Ryan'sinput on the faculty travel policy. The committee reviewed itsearlier work on travel and did re-structure part of itsrecommendation in light of that input. In order to provide both thecommittee and the administration with a basis for comparison, FatherRyan is collecting information about aspects of their travel policyfrom other Jesuit institutions and colleges similar to Le Moyne.

    The committee has also asked the Executive Board to discussthe possibility of expanding Le Moyne FACHEX plan. Board membershave received a packet of information that is, unfortunately,incomplete because the chair neglected to deliver a complete set ofmaterials to Maryann DeMichele. Board members will receive a copyof Le Moyne's present plan on Monday (3/17).

    On Monday, (3/17), the College-wide Fringe Benefits Committeeheld its third meeting. We had earlier received information aboutthe cost to the college for its share of employee health insurancepremiums and the yearly increases in percent since 1991, as well asa breakdown of those percentages into the dollar cost for eachhealth care carrier. Although she will have no information onincrease in premiums before October (at the earliest), Lynn McMartin indicated that, based on projections, most carriers mayincrease their rates anywhere from 6-12%. Committee members agreedto advise their constituencies that their health insurance willcost them more beginning in January, 1998.

    At this point the committee is divided between recommendingthat the college contribute equal dollar amounts to each employee'spremium and recommending that the college contribute the samepercentage to each employee's premium. Staff favor equal dollarcontribution since it is more equitable.

    At the next meeting, we will consider the following formulaeas ways to determine college/individual split:

  • 65%, 70%, 80% of existing insurance premiums as collegecontribution;
  • 65%, 70%, 80% of average of premiums for current carriers ascollege contribution;
  • 65% of 1% or 2% of gross employee payroll with an adjustmentfor cost of living as college contribution.

    Lynn Mc Martin also announced that a college-wide committee isbeing formed to revise early and normal retirement benefits. Ihave no other details on this.

    As always, if you have questions or recommendations orconcerns, please contact Ed Baumgartner, Greg Lepak, or KathleenNash, faculty representatives to the college-wide committee.

    Kathleen S. Nash for the Committee


    Report From The Committee on Rank and Tenureby Nancy Ring

    The Committee on Rank and Tenure has sent the names of three facultymembers to the President with the request that they be granted thestatus of professor emeritus (a).

    The Committee has requested from all departments data to help thecommittee document scholarship in each discipline. This is incompliance with the faculty's wishes as well as in compliance withthe request of President Mitchell. The date which these reports aredue is March 21.

    The Committee is considering several revisions to the presentlanguage of the Handbook in the sections concerning Rank and Tenure.



    1. Summer Research and Development Stipends have been awarded to:

    Susan Behuniak for work on book, "The Triumph of Medical Expertise: Abortion and Assisted Suicide Before the Court"

    Jennifer Glancy for work on book chapter, "Slavery in the Parables of Jesus"

    Vincent Hevern for research and preparation of a book manuscript, "Narrative Psychology: Elaboration of a Resource Reference Guide"

    Julie Olin-Ammentorp for research and writing of a chapter in a book on Edith Wharton's writing during World War I

    Beth Pritts for research on exposure to agricultural chemicals

    William Rinaman for development of a text for MTH 112, "Introduction to Statistical Methods II."

    K.R. Hanley for publication expenses ($100.00)

    2. E-Z form reimbursements have been made to:

    Harjit Arora for the expenses of a research questionnaire ($157.89)

    3. The Committee is pleased to report that the Academic Vice President, Fr. Edmund Ryan, has included course load reductions in the 1997-1998 academic budget. Four course load reductions - two in each semester - have been included. A call for applications has been sent out and applications are due by April 4.

    4. The Committee is currently processing Research and Development Grant applications and hopes to have its recommendations to the Academic Dean before Spring Break.


    End of HTML version of 3/19/97 Minutes-IHB
    Created: 9/26/97 Updated: 9/26/97