Minutes of the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate
November 20, 1996

Members present: L. Arnault, I. Barnello, S. Behuniak, J. Bogdan, M.K. Collins, J. Consler, C. Donn, A. Eppolito, J. Glancy, 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: M. MacDonald,

Others present: M. Ruwe, M. Miller

President Susan Behuniak called the meeting to order at 7:33 PM.

I. Minutes of October 16, 1996

The minutes were approved after the following corrections. 1) Fr. E. Ryan, S.J., ex officio member was present. 2) II.A. 1. Prof. Smith’s first initial is S, not C.

II. Officers' Reports

A. President's Report (See Attachment A)

S. Behuniak distributed a letter from Fr. Ryan (Attachment B) regarding the results of the referendum on equity issues. The Executive board agreed to give him more than the allotted 14 days to respond (until December 6, not Dec. 2 as stated in his letter). A discussion ensued about the differences in procedure between referenda and resolutions and whether the equity items are resolutions. Since they came from the ARPP Committee in the form of a resolution and sent to the faculty as a referendum for approval, they are both. The AVP reasoned that these items are still referenda and not resolutions since the resolution was only to send them out for a vote. He thinks one more vote of the Executive Board is needed to make them resolutions to be sent on to the AVP. Rather than vote them in now as resolutions, it was decided to make this issue the first agenda item under old business of tonight’s meeting. In this way, the proper procedure of the President bringing the issue to the Executive Board for a decision would be followed.

The remaining meetings will be held on February 12, March 19, and an afternoon Full Senate meeting on April 16 in order to meet before the Board of Trustees meeting on April 25 and to stay with the pattern of meeting on the third Wednesday of the month. We will skip a January meeting.

The letter from Michael Curtin (Attachment C) will be left for discussion during the Finance Committee report.

The status of the letter from Vice President Yost (Attachment D) is simply that the campus is being informed that this discussion is taking place. There are faculty representatives on the Athletic Advisory Board. (B. Blaszak, S. Ward, )

III. Questions of AVP & Dean


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

N. Ring, Chair of Rank and Tenure, added that the committee will be working on the preamble along with the norms for scholarship unique to the departments.

In carrying out the mandate of the Senate, S. Behuniak wrote a letter to Mr. Curtin simply to assertain if the Trustees heard her message about travel. This letter crossed the work of the College Budget Committee which figured the surplus to be much smaller than anticipated, preventing use for travel. In a second context, this letter raises the issue of priorities for 1997/98.

V. Old Business

A. Equity Issues/Letter to AVP Ryan (See II.A.)

J. Consler moved and B. Mitchell seconded a motion to write a letter to Fr. Ryan, dated tomorrow or later, that will place in resolution form those items from the recent faculty vote on equity issues that passed. The motion passed by a vote of 16 in favor, none opposed, and one abstention. According to the constitution, he will have two weeks to respond.

B. ARPP Resolution on Pre-Doctoral Fellowship

Resolved, that the Faculty Senate calls upon the administration of the collegeto resume funding of the Minority Pre-doctoral Fellowship Program as soon aspossible. Further, the Faculty Senate requests that the administration inform the president of the Faculty Senate in writing no later than January 15, 1997 as towhether the program will be funded for the 1998/99 academic year.

C. Donn moved the resolution to the table and K. Nash seconded that motion. A correction in the text of the resolution to the academic year 1998/99 was noted before the motion passed 16-0-1.

[At this juncture, the chair was passed to Vice President M.K. Collins for the duration of the discussion of the next agenda item in order to permit President S. Behuniak to participate in that discussion.]

C. Resolution on "Surplus" (Attachment I)

N. Ring moved and K. Nash seconded a motion to move this item to the table. S. Behuniak read the motion aloud and then asked J. Glancy, Chair of Finance, her position on the surplus as it stands now. Jennifer thinks that the resolution is not totally relevant now in light of the fact that we have the support of President Mitchell and that the Budget Committtee has begun to restore salaries. The December 6 trustees meeting is key to what happens with the surplus. Since the administration is acting in good faith and in as much as the resolution takes action towards the budget committee, it was decided by the movers to withdraw the resolution.

VI. New Business

A. Senate Officers' Resolution on Letter to Pres. Mitchell regarding Benefits

J. Consler moved and T. Vetrano seconded a motion to write a letter of thanks to President Mitchell for his support of the health benefits policy. The motion passed by unanimous consent.

B. Ring Resolution on Faculty Development Session

Resolved, that the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate will co-sponsor thefaculty development session with Rodolfo Cardenal, S.J., on Friday afternoon,January 31, 1997.

N. Ring moved and K. Nash seconded this resolution. Discussion brought out the purpose of the session which is to discuss the import of faculty writing and research. The purpose of co-sponsoring the session is to add legitimacy to the program and to generate discussion on this important topic. The motion passed 17 - 0 - 0.

C. Development of Priorities for Budget Year 1997/98

J. Glancy began this discussion by stating that the procedure is for priorities to come from the College Planning Committee and be sent to the Budget Committee. She also thanked M. Ruwe for raising the issue of adjunct pay ($1,600, $1,800, $2,000 per course) as something that needs to be addressed. The following items were cited as priorities: faculty salary plan, adjunct salaries, summer school stipends tied to COLA, seminar rooms, Reilley Room and Faculty Computing Room renovation, restoration of past programs--travel, course-load reductions, pre-doctoral fellowship.

A discussion of whether the Senate should focus on only academic issues or whether it should look at the entire range of spending ensued. Proponents of a wider look think that there is value in speaking for or against programs in other areas of the College since this is what the Budget Committee will be deciding. It is also a way to broaden the discussion on matters of importance to the faculty. To set priorities for academic affairs without also looking at and having an opinion on the priorities of other areas is to have blinders on. Opponents of this idea think that the Senate Finance Committee’s job is clearly laid out as one that represents faculty interests in keeping the academic side on the cutting edge with adequate funds for salaries, travel, classroom needs, and research and development. The job of presenting what should be happening in the entire budget senario is too big for the Finance Committee of the Senate to tackle and beyond its scope. It was also pointed out that since the different vice presidents bring forward their priorities to the College Budget Committee, the process precludes the Faculty Senate from overiding this process. The faculty representatives will advocate for academic priorities, as other parties advocate for their own.

On the subject of seminar rooms and facilities planning, Fr. Ryan mentioned that he will create a subcommittee of the College Planning Committee on academic facilities. Hopefully we can ensure that the faculty are consulted before classrooms are altered and not simply asked to come test the furniture. There was a process that should have worked but for the fact that it was underminded by individuals. The administration was under the impression that faculty approved the classroom renovations.

The Executive Board will revisit this list of priorities once the Finance Committee sees how the budget is shaping up.

[The chair was passed to M.K. Collins for the duration of the discussion of the next agenda item to allow S. Behuniak to participate in that discussion.]

D. Faculty Handbook

S. Behuniak moved and K. Nash seconded the following resolution.

Resolved, that the Professional Rights & Welfare Committee propose updatesto the Faculty Handbook (in particular the section on benefits and faculty travel) to the Executive Board by its February 1997 meeting.

There are some problems with the language of the handbook in the areas of travel and benefits. The purpose of the resolution is to back the PR&W Committee as they proceed with this work. An amendment was suggested that would specify that Section VI. would be updated by PR&W. To do the rest of the handbook is too big a job for that committee. The question of whether the entire document should be looked at was raised. Fr. Ryan warned (again) that the failure to include a statement on who can revise the document is an invitation for the administration to act arbitrarily and capriciously. Although he does not predict that the administration would behave that way, there is a real need to protect everyone involved. There are also other updates that are needed. Estimates of how long this would take ranged from several months to 2 years. J. Consler pointed out that so many issues would have to be negotiated with the administration. K. Nash told the group that PR&W cannot complete its work of revising Section VI until the college-wide committee on benefits finishes its work.

The resolution was amended to the following.

Resolved, that the Professional Rights & Welfare Committee propose updatesto Section VI of the Faculty Handbook to the Executive Board by its Februrary1997 meeting.

The motion passed 15-1-1.

E. ARPP Resolution on the Addition of Minus Grades (Attached to minutes of 11/20/96)

C. Donn moved this resolution and B. Shefrin seconded it. This issue was raised by ARPP last year. Students raised objections to it, so the Executive Board sent it back to ARPP to consider student objections. M. Flynn, President of the Student Senate, asked S. Behuniak to distribute her informal objection to this idea (Attachment J) tonight. President Flynn, although she did not have time to get the formal support of the Student Senate, feels that she has its support to oppose this change in grading policy.

Opponents fear that changes in grading policy will be difficult to manage, both in terms of adjustment by professors, software issues in the DataTel system, and transition years in which both grading policies would be in effect. There is no agreement on either side as to which method of grading would inflate grades or lead professors to grade more honestly. Proponents have argued that having plus grades without minus grades tends to inflate grades. Opponents worry that B+ grades will inflate to A- grades. Also of concern is the creation of a new passing grade of C- as one equal to 1.7 in grade points. A 1.7 cumulative grade point average does not qualify a student to graduate.

A discussion of how to proceed with this matter ended with a consensus to discuss this more widely by tabling it for now and by crafting another resolution to be co-joined and discussed at the same future meeting. More needs to be known about how faculty feel about it and we need formal input from the Student Senate. A resolution calling for a referendum will be placed on the agenda first, followed by the ARPP minus grades resolution. If the first resolution (calling for a referendum) is defeated, then we will consider the second substantive resolution on grading policy once again.

J. Glancy made and L. Arnault seconded a motion to table the ARPP resolution on grading to the February 12 meeting of the Executive Board. This motion passed 17-0-0.

The discussion then turned to the issue of what would constitute an acceptable positive vote on the yet-to-be-drafted resolution on a referendum on the grading system. Two thirds is required only on referenda that change the Constitution. It was agreed that the amount of a positive vote should be a simple majority of those eligible to vote or 72 votes. A suggestion to stipulate that at least one half of the eligible voters vote was not taken

The following resolution was drafted by J. Consler and others and moved by H.O’Leary and seconded by B. Mitchell.

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.

J. Consler moved to table this motion to the February 12 meeting and N. Ring seconded it. The motion passed 17-0-0.

Adjournment came at 9:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Inga H. Barnello
December 2, 1996


November 1996 Executive Board Meeting
Report from the Faculty Senate President
Submitted by Susan Behuniak

(1) We need to think about our spring semester meetings. First Meeting: Wed. Feb. 12. {We begin the semester onTuesday January 21 so I'd like to skip a January meeting. Since wehave a Feb. break from 15-18, I'd like to suggest that we meet theSECOND Wed. of Feb. on the 12th.}
Second Meeting: Wed. March 19
Full Senate meeting: Wed. April 23 at 4:00 p.m.
Please double check these dates and be ready to offersuggestions or concerns at the meeting.

(2) The AVP Search Committee has been constituted. The fivemembers nominated by the Senate Officers and appointed by PresidentMitchell were:

Martha Grabowski Business
Bill Shaw Humanities
Shawn Ward Social Sciences
Carmen Giunta Natural Sciences
LaVerne Higgins At Large
They join Fr. Ryan's appointments of Tom O'Neil, Dennis DePerro, and Molly Flynn (student). Fr. Ryan is serving as the committee's chair.

(3) Following the Senate's resolution concerning reopening theWharf, the Senate Officers along with Vinny Hevern met with MikeYost on October 31. The Wharf will be reopened for faculty and staffdining next semester (Spring 1997). Mike has agreed to work withMarriott in introducing a cost-effective lunch service in the oldWharf area. Most likely this will consist of a cold buffet and soupat one price. If we don't use it, however, we are likely again tolose it. There are also long term plans for moving the entire foodoperation to the Dining Hall once the expansion is completed (duringthe next few years.) We have Mike's commitment that we will beincluded in the discussion as to what sort of facility facultyrequire and how to provide some sort of food service in the teachingfacility.

(4) I wrote to Mike Curtin, Chair of the Board of Trustees,asking him to respond to my presentation to the Board on facultytravel. He has replied and I will distribute copies of his letter atthe meeting.

(5) I will also distribute a letter from Mike Yost informing usof two topics before the Athletic Advisory Board (to which we haveseveral faculty members as reps.) Discussions are taking place overwhether Le Moyne should institute a football program or change thedivisions in which our teams play.

(6) Finally, thanks to everyone who helped get out the vote onthe ARPP resolutions. In particular, thanks to Bruce Shefrin andTony Vetrano for organizing the divisional reps to serve as whips,to the reps who helped, to the Elections Committee for outstandingorganization, and to the Faculty Secretaries for helping to keeptrack of the voters. Good job everyone!


Committee on Academic Relations, Policies and ProceduresReport to the Faculty Senate Executive Board for 11/20/96

The committee met on October 31. Another meeting isscheduled for November 19.

It was decided that the instructions given to theCommittee last year when the issue of the addition of minus gradeswas referred back to us require that we now resubmit theresolution to the Executive Board. Therefore we have donethat (see Executive Board Agenda).

Marcia Ruwe will attempt to produce precise cataloguewording to the effect that any instance of academic dishonesty(not just those subsequent to the first) will make studentssubject to dismissal. The committee has already approved thischange in principle.

The subcommittee working on Academic Forgiveness andAcademic Standing has produced proposals for consideration atour next meeting. We have also received a suggestion from theOffice of Continuous Learning to change the standards forDeans List so that part-time students will be eligible.

Clifford B. Donn



Our thanks to the Core Evaluation Team, Ed Judge, EvieMonsay, and Fred Glennon for their succinct report "Evaluation ofthe Strengths and Weaknesses of the current Core Curriculum." Theinformation on which the report is based is summarized inappendices.
This preliminary report in its basic version has been sentto all faculty senate members. An expanded version has been sent todepartment chairs, and placed on reserve in the library and in thefaculty lounge.
All members of the Le Moyne community are invited toparticipate in the Spring, l997 series of public colloquia onperceived weaknesses in the current core and potential ways toremedy them.

Harriet O'Leary, for the Curriculum Committee

Election Committee Report for 11/20

The Elections Committee has not met since tallying the results of the last election. These appear below.

The results of the referendum on equity issues as proposed by the ARPP committee and passed by the Faculty Senate Executive Board on April 3, 1996 are as follows:

Potential ballots (current Faculty Senate membership) 142 Ballots recorded: 114

Percentage of membership voting: 80.28% Ballots needed for simple majority (items A-E, G-J): 71* Ballots needed for two-thirds vote (item F): 95(94.66)**

Item In favor Opposed Abstain Action
A 85 28 1 Passed
B 90 18 6 Passed
C 97 9 8 Passed
D 73 29 12 Passed
E 98 11 5 Passed
F 92 17 5 Defeated
G 90 21 3 Passed
H 87 18 9 Passed
I 90 17 7 Passed
J 95 10 9 Passed

* Change to Faculty Handbook
** Constitutional change (Article 7, secs 1-3)

John McMahon


Subj: Rank and Tenure Report

The Rank and Tenure Committee is continuing its deliberations. Wealso plan meetings in the spring to review our process and to seekfrom the respective departments information concerning the norms forscholarship unique to their departments.


Senate Finance Committee Report , 11/20 meeting

The College Budget committee met to discuss how to allocate fundsthat have become available for the 96-97 year. We voted to allocateall available funds into salaries for faculty, staff, andadministrators. Faculty members of the committee stated that at thispoint, restoration of funds for salaries was a higher priority thanallocating additional funds for faculty travel or funded course-loadreductions for the spring, although we are committed to seeingthose items funded in the 97-98 budget. The Budget Committeerecommended the following allocation of salary funds to thepresident: funding grade adjustments for faculty (step raises, merit pools,and beginning to fund "salary enhancements" for those below or atscale), and parallel grade adjustments for staff and administrators(n.b., last spring staff who moved up in grade did not receive anypromotion raises); funding approximately 1.3% inflationary componentfor all college employees. Raises will be retroactive, for staff andadministrators until July and for faculty to the beginning of theacademic year. The president will make his own recommendation to theTrustees to ratify.

For the 97-98 fiscal year, members of the Faculty Senate must rankour priorities to bring to Budget Committee. Please forward to meany items that you believe should be priorities for faculty on theBudget Committee to promote. (To date, I have only received one suchrequest.)

Jennifer Glancy


Committee on Professional Rights and Welfare

At its last meeting, the committee addressed two majorissues: its relationship to the new college-wide benefits committeeand the revision of section VI of the faculty handbook.
We decided that it is important that at least one member ofthe committee sit on the college-wide committee. I sent the names of thecommittee, ranked according to interest in or willingness to serveon this college-wide committee to Father Mitchell for considerationas faculty representatives to the committee.
We reviewed section VI of the faculty handbook. Individualmembers took responsiblity to review and make recommendations forindividual sections (e.g., faculty spouses/partners taking courses atLe Moyne, Early and regular Retirement).
This revision is our major priority. We plan to have adraft of some sections ready to submit to the faculty senate by theFebruary meeting.

Kathleen Nash for Professional Rights and Welfare


for the Executive Board Meeting of November 20, 1996

by Mary MacDonald

1. Letters inviting eligible faculty to apply for sabbatical weresent out on October 23. The list of eligible faculty is posted onthe notice board opposite the mailroom. Applications are due onDecember 2.

2. Grants for Research and Development (Fall) have been approved bythe Academic Dean. The ten grantees are:

Harjit Arora, Economics, Participation in a Teaching Workshopsponsored by the International Association for Feminist Economics inpreparation for teaching a course, "Women and Economics," at LeMoyne. $565.00

Carolyn Bashaw, History, Research on Tallulah Brockman Bankhead fora paper to be presented at the Southern Conference on Women'sHistory. $633.20

Krystine Batcho, Psychology, Research on Nostalgia. $1,800.00

Edwin Baumgartner, Mathematics, Participation in Workshops onTeaching Calculus and Statistics. $322.50

Sul-young Choi, Mathematics, Participation in a Workshop on TeachingLinear Algebra. $480.85

Louis De Gennaro, Biology, Research on Innervation of Avian GlycogenBody in Spinal Cord of Birds Using Confocal Microscopy. $1,104.00

La Verne Higgins, Industrial Relations/Human Resource Management,Participation in Workshop on Technology and Teaching in HumanResources and Industrial Relations. $715.91

John Langdon, History, Research in Archives de la France d'OutreMer, in Aix-en-Provence for book, "Heirs to Napoleon: Creators ofFrance's Colonial Empire." $1,000.00

Roger Lund, English, Payment of copyright fees foressays republished in edited volume, "Daniel Defoe: Selected Essaysin Criticism." $1,085.00

John McMahon, Foreign Languages and Literatures, Preparation ofspecialized indices for book, "Cave Paralysin." $2,000.00

3. So far this semester E-Z Form Grants for reimbursement of unfunded,incidental research expenses have been made to:

David Lloyd, Proofreading of Manuscript, $105.00

Jennifer Glancy, Photographs to illustrate journal article, $50.00

LaVerne Higgins, Journal article submission fee, $170.00

4. We resume meetings on December 5 to work on the sabbaticalapplications.


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