Members present: L. Arnault, I. Barnello (recording), S. Behuniak, J. Bogdan, , M.K. Collins, J. Consler, C. Donn, J. Glancy, M. MacDonald, J. McMahon, B. Mitchell, K. Nash, O. Ocampo, H. O'Leary, N. Ring, B. Shefrin, A. Vetrano
Members absent: A. Eppolito
Others present for all or part of the meeting: M. Ruwe, M. Miller, F. Glennon
President Susan Behuniak called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
I. Minutes of September 18, 1996
The minutes were approved with the following correction: in section V. 3. on page 4, it should read "Assistants" instead of Assistance.
II. Officers' Reports
A. President's report
1) Susan announced that, in consultation with the R&D Committee, she appointed M. Kagan, C. Smith, B. Kirby, and T. Clifton to the Institutional Review Board.
2) In consultation with the Curriculum Committee, she appointed K. Batcho, representing the social sciences, C. Giunta from the natural sciences, and Julie Olin-Ammentorp, representing the humanities to the AACSB subcommittee.
3) The ARPP Committee's Proposal on Equity Issues will be ready for a vote on October 21. Balloting will conclude on November 1.
4) She reported on her imploring the Trustees to intervene on behalf of the faculty for the reinstatement of travel funds for this year and asked advice on how best to handle their lack of response. Susan will write to the Chair of the Board of Trustees.
B. Secretary/Treasurer's Report
Inga Barnello presented a 1997/98 budget document (attachment A) for the board's approval to send into the budget process. C. Donn moved and A. Vetrano seconded a motion to approve the budget request. The motion passed unanimously without abstentions.
III. AVP's Report
Fr. Ryan reminded the group that the College must respond to Middle States on outcomes assessment by November 1, 1997 and on governance in 2001. He urged faculty to assist with this. It was agreed that we will begin to form workgroups composed of a wide range of campus constituencies. He also requested nominees for the AVP Search Committee.
IV. Questions on Committee Reports (See Attachments B-E)
AVP Ryan interjected that he has a problem with this year's agenda items thus far, in that many have important financial consequences and that the Finance Committee has not spoken to these items. S. Behuniak asked that we conclude the committee reports with Finance's report and discuss the budget process.
There were three questions about the work of the Curriculum Committee. In answer to a question of whether the education faculty are aware of a new program proposal in adult education in the Education Department, H. O'Leary responded that M.L Collins simply conveyed the proposal last April from Norbert Henry to the Committee. Some concern was expressed that the proposal was not widely discussed within the department. When asked what role Syracuse University Prof. R. Hiemstra has in the proposals, it was pointed out that he is a joint author of the proposal, that there is no longer a program at S.U., and that the presence of Hiemstra's name raised interesting questions. It was also reported that the Curriculum Committee will re-review the plan for the Academic Support Center later this Fall once Anne Herron submits a report. In response to a question on oversight for new programs it was clarified that 1) there are clearly written procedures for adding and deleting programs that are part of the Curriculum Committee's written procedures and 2) that a proposal for a new program travels from the AVP to Curriculum Committee, to its subcommittee on new programs, back to Curriculum, and then to the AVP.
There was a discussion of the issue of budget process vis a vis the work of the Senate's other committees. The AVP wants to know the faculty's priorities so that he can be an effective advocate for them in the budget process. It was stressed that these priorities should be set by the Executive Board and then communicated to Finance and then to the AVP. On the agenda for the November meeting of the Executive Board will be the issue of the prioritization of budget items. J. Glancy asked that funding requests be forwarded to her in the next couple of weeks.
Regarding Research and Development and the revision of its guidelines, there was a lengthy discussion about the full cost of course load reductions. M. MacDonald, chair of R&D, maintained that R&D cannot come up with the cost, but only the additional cost. The AVP maintains that the cost is 1/7 or 14% of a faculty salary. Faculty present argued that since they do not spend all their time teaching, but rather on administrative chores as well, that the full cost is less than 14%. It was concluded that the cost lies somewhere between 14% of a faculty salary and $2,000 in adjunct pay per course. The R&D resolution will be brought to the Budget Committee by the AVP
V. Old Business
A. Faculty Dining Resolution
Resolved: The Faculty Senate Officers will negotiate the restoration of afaculty dining facility within the academic complex. If these negotiationsfail, they will demand that the Wharf be re-opened by the onset of theSpring 1997 semester.
The resolution, which was tabled at the September meeting, was read and put to a vote. It passed, without discussion, by a vote of 16 in favor, none opposed, and one absentee abstention.
B. Caphe Grant
Resolved: The Faculty Senate will form a subcommittee of the Committeeon Academic Relations, Policies and Procedures (ARPP) to lead the CAPHEGrant.
The resolution, which was tabled at the last meeting, was read and put to a vote without discussion. It passed unanimously.
[The chair was passed to M.K. Collins at this juncture to enable S. Behuniak to participate in the discussion of the next agenda item.]
C. Elections Committee Resolution on Voting Recertification (Attachment F)
S. Behuniak reported that an adjunct professor approached her for clarification on procedure. The request that the form itself be a response form as well was met with agreement. Also, part-time professors no longer have contracts until they are about to teach the course. Thus, an adjunct in August may not be able to guarantee that the eight-hour requirement will be met. It was asked that the requirement be treated as an expectation based on prior history. A discussion of logistics ended with a consensus that the Senate will make this work. There is no intent to make it impossible for adjuncts to vote; the Constitution grants them the right. The resolution passed unanimously without abstentions (17-0-0).
VI. New Business
A. AARP Committee Resolution on Pre-Doctoral Fellowship
C. Donn moved and J. Consler seconded the resolution. C. Donn began the discussion by explaining that this issue emerged from AARP's work of last year. While the committee feels it is important, he added, in light of the earlier discussion on budget priorities, that he did not see it as a top funding priority. AARP simply wants to know if this program will continue; they seek an answer from the AVP. They as yet have no opinion about how the process should work, other than to point out that perhaps it should not be handled as it was last time. A friendly amendment to change the funding date to 1998/99 to allow all the lead time necessary to deliberate, publicize, and hire was moved by K. Nash and seconded by N. Ring. The amendment was accepted by the group by a vote of 14-1 with two abstentions. J. Glancy moved that the resolution as amended be tabled until the next meeting. J. Bogdan seconded the motion. The resolution as amended was tabled by a vote of 17-0-0.
Resolved: That the Faculty Senate calls upon the administration of the Collegeto resume funding of the Minority Pre-doctoral Fellowship Program as soon as possible. Further, the Faculty Senate requests that the administration informthe president of the Faculty Senate in writing no later than January 15, 1997 as to whether the program will be funded for the 1998/99 academic year.
B. R&D Committee Guidelines (Attached to 10/16/96 Agenda)
M. MacDonald moved and B. Mitchell seconded a resolution that would transmit a revision of R&D's guidelines to the full faculty for approval. M. MacDonald recommended that a senate-wide vote on this resolution be handled on a program-by-program basis, rather than all or nothing. The AVP recommended that the document describe the purpose of each program, that the definition of "faculty" on page one be spelled out, to build a schedule into the document, and to refer to the Faculty Handbook when appropriate. The two movers of the resolution agreed to withdraw the resolution and to re-work it.
[At this point of the meeting, S. Behuniak asked the group about the length of the meeting. A. Vetrano moved and N. Ring seconded a motion to extend the meeting. It passed 16-1-0. S. Behuniak asked M.K. Collins to chair the meeting during the discussion of the next agenda item in order to enable her to participate in the discussion.]
C. Resolution on "Surplus" (Attachment G)
S. Behuniak, who wrote and moved the resolution, explained that the purpose of the resolution is to establish a means to begin a course of protest if by November 20 (the date of the next Executive Board meeting) no decision about salaries is made. Two friendly amendments to include staff and administrators in the resolution's statement on salary enhancements were offered. After a discussion on the merits of the role of the Faculty Senate as a negotiator for all employees, and the value of leaving our options open in terms of how to react in the event that the Budget Committee fails to restore monies to the salary programs, the movers of the resolution accepted the amendments. K. Nash moved and J. Bogdan seconded a motion to table the resolution as amended until the November meeting. The motion to table passed 15-1-1.
D. Professional Rights & Welfare Resolution on Proposed Benefits Package
N. Ring moved and K. Nash seconded the following emergency resolution.
Resolved: Whereas current economic conditions are difficult andthere is insufficient time to analyze and render an informed judgment,we strongly recommend that the possible implementation of the proposed benefits package be deferred for one year. We commit ourselves to workas partners with representatives of the staff and administrative fora in a collegial and constructive manner to resolve the question of the best benefits package for all Le Moyne employees.
K. Nash reported that PR&W twice met with L. McMartin about the restructuring of health care benefits, enhancement of life, disability, and dental insurance, and new offerings on auto and home insurance. They learned on 9/17 /96 of the desire to change the 65/35 contribution formula. Around 10/1/96 the committee was informed of the details of the plan. Kathleen added that the plan was presented at one meeting as a "train leaving the station" and that faculty better get on board. At another point it was discovered that few knew of the proposed changes. While PR&W recognizes the need for change, overall it is felt that in a year of a pay cut (no COLA), it would be prudent and fair to give people time to adjust and plan for increases in premiums the size of those that are being proposed.
AVP Ryan explained the history of the premium rates, the schedule that the College is forced to follow in working with the insurance companies, and the process by which this proposal will move forward. Rates are announced (subject to NYS approval) by the companies in late September after they calculate the year's experience from August to August. In late 1994, Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) announced drastic increases in the 1995 premiums. The College did not pass the increase on to the employees (at cost to the College of $116,000). Applying 65% of the BCBS premium to the employer contribution of the rest of the health plans brought the employee cost of the other plans way down while BCBS stayed high. This led to the migration of employees away from BCBS. In July 1996, wishing to avoid adverse selection and the loss of BCBS's business and as part of a plan to offer a better overall benefits package, the College began to investigate the Blue Point plan offered by BCBS--an improved, better offering at a low rate. The $155,000 savings realized by the alterations were earmarked by the President to be used to help those who are hurt by the changes in premiums. He further pointed out that changes in benefits are possible under the faculty handbook. In addition, he assured the group that if there is great opposition, they will not go forward with the plan. He cautioned that we ought not to miss out on this offer of Blue Point at a good rate.
K. Nash spoke to the issue of timing as centering not on when vendors establish their rates, but rather on 1) the notification of employees way ahead of time that hefty increases are forthcoming and 2) the need to avoid higher payroll deductions in a year when no cost-of-living adjustments were given. She added that the belief that the cabinet had approved the proposal came from L. McMartin
After expressions of relief that there is a commitment to ameliorate the impact on people's salaries, expressions of disgust about the process, and a discussion of the merits of BCBS and its comprehensive catastrophic coverage, the discussion turned to the issues of governance and collegiality. The AVP affirmed a commitment to consultation and education and stated that this is not a "done deal." C. Donn spoke to the view that this issue is all about collegiality. The right approach would have been to collegially sit down and work out a means to approach redesigning the benefits plan within a more reasonable time frame.
A suggestion to accept the plan as is with the insistence of reconsidering it after one year was set aside by the argument that attempts this time by PR&W to negotiate the proposal were not accepted. The AVP suggested that to defer the plan is to defer the enhancements contained within it. K. Nash reminded us that the enhancements cost approximately $30,000, a relatively small portion of the "savings." L. Arnault knew from her own inquiries about health plans last November that changes in health benefit offerings and premiums were imminent.
Back to the issue of process, C. Donn mentioned that 9 years ago an attempt was made to move away from the 65/35 split. The administration backed off because of the Faculty Handbook stipulation on this matter. The AVP, who had read earlier from the Handbook where it states that changes can be made in this area, added that no provisions for faculty senate approval of changes in the Handbook are contained within it.
B. Shefrin moved the question and K. Nash seconded the motion to vote. The vote of 9 in favor and 6 opposed was not enough to pass the motion (two-thirds requirement). The discussion continued.
J. McMahon asked about BCBS and the concern of losing this option. N. Ring asked about the implications for January 1997 in terms of plans offered and their costs and the College's contributions to them. Since we have no rate for the traditional comprehensive BCBS plan, but only their Blue Point offering, it is difficult to analyze. Retirees will be all right because they go on to a separate BCBS plan upon retirement. It was pointed out that according to L. McMartin, level 2 and 3 of Blue Point is equivalent to the traditional BCBS plan that we have had. The specifics of the plans are one issue, but the underlying issues of values and collegiality remain separate issues that may drive the acceptance or rejection of this proposal, according to K. Nash
The vote on the resolution were 11 in favor, 1 opposed, and 4 abstentions.
K. Nash moved and M. MacDonald seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed and adjournment came at 10:45 PM.
Inga H. Barnello
October 30, 1996
Report to the Faculty Senate Executive Board for 10/16/96Committee on Academic Relations, Policies and Procedures
The committee met on September 24 and on October 10. Allof the topics currently before the committee were discussed andmost were given to various subcommittees to prepare proposals.
Fred Glennon reported on the CAPHE grant which relates toteaching, faculty rewards and institutional priorities. Fredwill report to the committee periodically and the committee willsupport Fred's work as much as possible.
The committee agreed that it would not spend its timediscussing the minority pre-doctoral fellowship program unlessthe administration makes it clear it intends to fund the programagain in the near future. Cliff Donn agreed to present aresolution (see agenda of executive board) supporting the fundingof the fellowship program and asking the administration to tellus whether it will be funded for next year.
The committee discussed adding minus grades to thecurrent grading system. It was the decision of the committee notto recommend doing so. The committee then discussed the issue ofwhether to eliminate plus grades. The input of faculty will besought and the issue will be discussed at our next meeting onOctober 31.
Academic Dean Ruwe raised the issue of changing thecurrent definitions of satisfactory academic standing, probation,and disqualification as now stated in the college catalogue.The subcommittee working on issues of academic bankruptcy agreedto examine this issue as well. That subcommittee recommendedthat a system of academic bankruptcy be instituted in a limitedset of circumstances. It also recommended that a course in whicha student has received a grade of "F" should be repeatable withonly the second grade affecting the student's GPA but with anindication on the transcript that the course was retaken due tofailure. These matters will be decided in the next meeting.
The committee agreed to a minor change in the gradegrievance procedure to specify that if a department chair is theinstructor whose grade is being appealed, then the most seniorfull-time member of the department will serve the role usuallyserved by the department chair in that case.
Subcommittees continue to work on the questions offaculty status for librarians and evaluation of administrators.
Clifford B. Donn, Chair
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE REPORT, 16-10-96, Harriet O'Leary, Chair
The Committee completed its review of courses submitted forinclusion in the S97 Academic Schedule now going to press for the F96pre-registration period. A department wishing to propose a newundergraduate course to be taught in S97 may still do so, provided thecourse has been reviewed and approved by the Committee on or before Nov.17, 1996 (one week before undergrad pre-registration). Therefore any suchcourses should reach the Committee no later than noon on November 3, 1996.The policy is simply that no student can register for a course not listedin the computer (since a listing presupposes Curriculum Committee approvaland signature of the Academic Dean), but may register for courses dulyapproved after the publication of the Academic Schedule. Disseminatinginformation to students about additional course offerings so approved isthe responsibility of the department(s).
Following her conversations with the chairs of the departmentsdirectly involved, the President of the Faculty Senate met with theCurriculum Committee on Oct. 7, 1996 to consult on appointments to a taskforce to bring information to the Faculty Senate concerning AACSBaccreditation. All parties agreed to the guidelines contained in theletter of 3/9/89 from the Curriculum Committee to the Executive Board ofthe Faculty Senate as to the constitution of the task force and the chargeto it.
The Department of Education conveyed to the Curriculum Committee inlate April, 1996, a proposal for a Master of Science in Education--AdultEducation (M.S. Ed.). The Proposal describes the Program, its CurricularStructure; contains Course Descriptions and syllabi; identifies FacultyResources (both current Le Moyne faculty and administrators and areapersons who have terminal degrees specifically in Adult Education, withmini cvs on the latter); provides a rationale for a new graduate program;addresses budget, scheduling, library/computer resources and includessupporting documents. Copies of the complete document can beconsulted/borrowed from divisional representatives on the Committee, andare available in Dr. Henry's office, in Mrs. DeMichele's office, and in theFaculty Lounge. The proposal is scheduled for preliminary discussionduring the Curriculum Committee meeting of 10/21/96--after unfinishedbusiness--as announced in the two weeks' advanced agenda notice.
The Committee solicits comments from faculty, administrators, andstaff on this proposal prepared by Dr. Roger Hiemstra and Dr. Norbert Henry.
Report from the Elections Committee:
Ballots are currently being drawn up for Faculty Senate voting upon the ARPP Committee's proposals on equity issues as amended by the vote of the Faculty Senate's Executive Board on April 3, 1996.
In consultation with the Officers of the Faculty Senate the Elections Committee has established a ten-day balloting period: Monday, October 21, 1996 through the close of business on Friday, November 1, 1996.
Finance Committee Report for 10/16/96
In September Tom O'Neil stated that the Budget Committee would be in aposition to make a recommendation to the President regarding "surplus"funds by October 1. We are not yet in a position to make such arecommendation. Financial Services has been very slow in providing accurateinformation concerning the current actual budget situation to the BudgetCommittee. For example, on August 29 the Faculty Senate Finance Committeesent a memo to O'Neil requesting relevant information, including thevariance between the approved salary totals for faculty, staff, andadministrators, and the actual projected salary totals. We did not receivethis information until October 8. We are still waiting for other necessaryinformation, including estimates of the costs of funding faculty step raises(and the equivalent for staff), merit pools, trustee-approved but neverimplemented salary enhancements for various groups, and COLA.
As of October 8, Financial Services projects a "surplus" of $473,775. Thechief components of that sum are:
1) higher than anticipated revenues in the master's degree programs;2) salary savings from those who have resigned or taken leaves of absence.
The Faculty Senate Finance Committee remains committed to restoring suchfunds into the salary base for those currently working at the College(i.e., not for new hires), and to doing so in an equitable manner. Untilall who work for the College receive in their base pay the money they aredue, we are reluctant to say that the College is running a "surplus."
Finally, we plan to make the approved minutes of the Budget Committeeavailable in this forum. Lynette Parker of Information Systems has offeredto help me with the logistics of uploading the files.
Jennifer Glancy for the Finance Committee
Professional Rights and Welfare Committee Report
The Professional Rights and Welfare Committee met withLynn McMartin and Ed Ryan, S.J., for discussion of the proposed 1997benefits package. The committee urged that the proposal be reconsideredsince it comes without warning during a year of salary freezes.
In a subsequent meeting, the Committee prepared the followingresolution for the 10/16 Faculty Senate Executive Board meeting.Because the matter is urgent and we are pressed for time,the Committee asks that the board vote on this resolution immediately.
Whereas current economic conditions are difficult and there isinsufficient time to analyze and render an informed judgement, we stronglyrecommend that the possible implementation of the proposed benefits packagebe deferred for one year. We commit ourselves to work as partners withrepresentatives of staff and administrative fora in a collegially andconstructive manner to resolve the question of the best benefits packagefor all Le Moyne employees.
Kathleen Nash, Chair
RANK AND TENURE COMMITTEE REPORT by Nancy Ring
As reported previously, this committee has nine applications to consider.We begin deliberations this Friday.
REPORT OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMMITTEEby Mary MacDonald
Since the September meeting of the Executive Board the Research andDevelopment Committee has met three times. We report the following:
1. We held an Open Forum on R&D programs on Sept 24 and shall be givinginput on R&D at one of the New Faculty Orientation sessions this month.Nancy Ring, chair of the Rank and Tenure Committee, met with us prior tothe Open Forum to discuss R&T concerns related to the funding of researchand development and attended the forum.
2. Susan Behuniak, President of the Faculty Senate, met with us to discussrecommendations for members of the Institutional Review Board for theProtection of Human Subjects.
3. Fred Glennon briefed us on the current status of the Caphe Project.
4. We completed work on revising the Committee's Guidelines.
5. We provided the Academic Vice-President, Fr. Ryan, with the informationhe requested at the September meeting of the Executive Board. SubsequentlySusan Behuniak and Mary MacDonald met with Fr. Ryan to discuss therestoration of Course Load Reductions for Research and Development. Fr.Ryan was to discuss the possibility of restoring Course Load Reductionsfor Spring of 1997 with the Budget Committee.
6. Fall Applications for Research and Development were considered andrecommendations have been sent to the Academic Dean for her endorsement.As soon as we have her endorsement (due by November 15) faculty memberswill be notified. A list of awards made this semester will be included inthe December report to the Full Faculty Senate.
7. The 1997-1998 Budget was prepared and submitted to the Academic Dean.
8. Announcement: Dr. Kathleen Nash will give a slide presentation of herarchaeological work in Syria this past summer at a brown bag gathering inthe Community Room off the Chapel on Wednesday, October 23, at 12:30 p.m.
9. Letters inviting faculty members to apply for sabbatical leave will besent out as soon as we have the list of those eligible from the AcademicDean's Office.
A Proposal to Recertify the Voting Membership of the Faculty SenateProposed by: Sue Behuniak, Faculty Senate President, and Vinnie Hevern, S.J. and John McMahon (Chair), Elections Committee
The resolution to be considered consists of sections I, IV, and Vof this proposal.
That the Faculty Senate Executive Board establish a process for therecertification of voting members of the Faculty Senate.
The Constitution, By-Laws and Handbook are silent on the issue ofregistering voters of the Senate. However, we need to register people toensure that the qualifications specificed in the Const. and Handbook arebeing followed.
Because we have never recertified voting members, the current rollnow consists of approximately 147 voters. The problems of identifyingqualified voters, and of securing the approval of two-thirds of all themembers, prevents the Senate from acting on constitutional issues.
According to the Faculty Constitution Article III (p. A-1), votingmembers of the Senate consist of:
1. Full time teaching faculty
Full-time academic librarians
2. Adjunct faculty who:
teach a minimum of 8 contact hours per academic year
have a minimum of 3 years service
and who submit a written application to the Senate President.
The Handbook does not designate emeriti/ae as “teaching faculty,”so in order to be eligible to vote, they would have to meet thequalifications for voting as adjunct faculty.
Faculty on leaves of absence are not “teaching faculty,” so duringthe leave, they would not be eligible voters.
Faculty on sabbaticals remain a part of the “teaching faculty” butthey must indicate both their willingness to participate and thefeasibility of participating within the normal constraints of the ElectionsCommittee’s procedures.
(1) The Elections Committee sends a list of all full timeteaching faculty and full time academic librarians to the Academic Dean’soffice for verification. If there are any discrepancies, the ElectionsComm. will contact the member to clarify the status.
(2) The Elections Committee sends a letter to all adjunctsscheduled to teach during the new academic year, asking that they certifythat they meet the qualifications and that they send their request to voteto the Faculty Senate President. The Faculty Senate President will thenrelay all such requests to the Elections Committee.
(3) The Elections Committee will make any necessaryrevisions to the voting rolls and will post the list. Members should reportany mistakes, omissions, or discrepancies to the Elections Committee withinfive week days of the posting.
(4) The Elections Committee finalizes the list of eligiblevoters by the Tuesday of the second week of classes. (During the first yearof this process, this will be done as soon as possible.)
(5) This recertification process will take place everyAugust/September.
BEHUNIAK RESOLUTION ON "SURPLUS" as amended on 10/16/96
WHEREAS, salary increases including salary adjustments for staff and administrators who advanced in level, step raises for faculty, merit raises for faculty, salary enhancements for staff and administrators, liberal arts and sciences and social science faculty, and cost of living adjustments for all employees were withheld from salary plans for academic year 1996-97;
WHEREAS, these monies were withheld so that Le Moyne College could producea balanced budget for 1996-97;
WHEREAS, the Faculty members who comprise the Faculty Senate FinanceCommittee have calculated a "surplus" that in their judgment is sufficientto restore some funds to the salary programs;
WHEREAS, the College Budget Committee has failed to meet its own October 1,1996 deadline to recommend to President Mitchell a course of actionregarding the "surplus;"
BE IT RESOLVED, that if in the judgment of the Faculty Senate FinanceCommittee, the College Budget Committee fails to approve a plan to restoresufficient monies to salary programs by November 20, 1996, that the FacultySenate Executive Board authorize, plan, and conduct a course of actionprotesting the withholding of monies due Le Moyne College employees