Minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Board
September 17, 1997

Members present: I. Barnello, B. Blaszak, R. Bucko, S. Choi, J. Consler, A. Eppolito, A. Fischler, K. Geisinger, ex officio, J. Glancy, L. Hsu, J. McMahon, W. Miller, K. Nash, N. Ring, B. Shefrin, S. Smith, A. Vetrano. Members absent: L. Arnault. Others present: C. Donn, M. Goodisman, V. Hevern, M. Miller, E. Ryan, M. Ruwe, S. Ward

President M. K. Collins called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM in the Reilley Room.

I. Approval of appointments to faculty senate standing committees

The first order of business was to approve the faculty appointments to the Faculty Senate standing committees. K. Nash made the motion to approve and S. Smith seconded it. The motion passed 18-0.

II. Minutes of April 16, 1997 executive board meeting

These minutes were approved without corrections.

III. Opening comments

The meeting time for the spring semester is tentatively set for Tuesdays at 4 PM. Wednesdays at 3:30 will not work out because of the teaching schedules of some members.

A list of the members of all the college wide committees was distributed.

IV. Questions on committee reports

There were none. See attachments A and B to these minutes for those reports that were filed.

V. Old Business

A. Equity resolutions

President Collins distributed two memos regarding the equity resolutions that were passed by the senate membership in fall 1996. The September 8, 1997 memo from E. Ryan to K. Geisinger (Attachment C) summarizes the issues and presents data collected about other institutions’ contractual course load and compensation for department chairs. The September 12, 1997 memo from K. Geisinger to M. K. Collins (Attachment D) is the AVP’s veto of referendum items A, B, D, and G (see Attachment E).

In accordance with Article 10, Section 8 of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate, a meeting must be held within 20 class days of a veto with 2 weeks notice given. The purpose of the meeting (to be held on October 7 at 3:30 PM in the Reilley Room) is an open discussion with AVP Geisinger and former AVP Ryan about the 4 equity resolutions that were vetoed.

If the senate decides to uphold its proposal (Section 8), the Elections Committee will distribute referendum ballots to the entire senate. The ballot would address each item separately. A two thirds vote of those voting is required to override the veto. The matter would then go the College President and the Chair of the Board of Trustees.

VI. New Business

A. Resolution on computing resources (Attachment F)

B. Blaszak moved this proposal and J. Consler seconded it. V. Hevern spoke to it by raising the following points

  • C. Wolford’s summer memo on changes in campus computing contained one paragraph only on administrative computing with the rest affecting academic issues.
  • A variety of decisions have been made over recent months affecting the pedagogical and research aims of the faculty which have been decided by someone other than an academic.
  • Some decisions were made without any input from faculty
  • . As we add computer-related work to our teaching and research responsibilities, it is important that faculty needs be incorporated in the decisionmaking pertaining to computing.
  • Although the senate has not the right to tell the college how to organize itself, it is an anomaly for information systems to have no oversight by an administrator from the academic side. The academic aims of computing at the college would be better served if the AVP is more involved with it.

    It was further pointed out that the 5 year plan on computing has not been updated in 9 years, leaving the faculty with no formal input to campus computing issues for that length of time.

    The motion passed 18 - 0 - 0.

    B. Proposal of stipends for adjunct faculty (Attachment G)

    A task force composed of J. Glancy, Chair; J. Consler, K. Geisinger, M. Ruwe, E. Ryan, and S. Ward submitted a proposal for adjustments for the adjunct faculty pay scale. If approved, it would go the college budget committee. Editorial comments should be communicated to J. Glancy. Substantive issues are to be put into writing to Prof. Glancy.

    The charge of this task force was to find an alternative to an inflationary adjustment for adjunct faculty. This work was done in response to a ruling by the college late last year that part time faculty will not receive cost of living adjustments (COLA). The college attorney advised against the granting of COLA to adjunct faculty in light of concern over the lack of COLA for part time employees elsewhere on campus that are union contracted. The argument is made that the college must not give a benefit to one group and exclude others.

    Discussion brought out these points.

  • The elimination of COLA in favor of periodic adjustments is unjust, undignified, and paternalistic.
  • A fixed amount of a raise does not reward experience of long term people.
  • No adjuncts were on the task force.
  • Since the proposal calls for a review process to evaluate the effects of this plan, another committee is needed and would tax an already burdened administrative committee load of our faculty.
  • In 1985, M. Goodisman, J. Fratto, R. O’Brien served on a committee that proposed 4 benefits for adjuncts. Two of them were approved by AVP Finlay. Both of these (continuing contracts for long term adjuncts and COLA) were subsequently eliminated.
  • There is a belief among some faculty that the college attorney is wrong on the illegality of granting COLA to one group of part time employees.
  • This situation raises the question of why would there be no distinction between a part time faculty member and a part time maintenance worker, while there is a distinction (different raises) for full time faculty and full time union workers here on campus.
  • The ABD category was removed because it is complicated by different definitions of it by various universities.
  • It is difficult to hire adjuncts at what we pay them.
  • This plan does not preclude paying someone more.
  • The cost of the plan is $100,000.
  • This task force did not abolish COLA for adjuncts, the administration did.
  • To revisit the issue of cancellation of COLA for adjuncts is something quite different and more complicated and requires the task force to revisit the numbers they came up with for the scale.
  • Wider consultation and clarifying language are needed. N. Ring moved and K. Nash seconded a motion to table this until the October 22 meeting. The motion passed 17 - 0 - 1.

    C. Approval of the curriculum subcommittee on the physics department

    The social sciences position on the subcommittee was filled by Robert Kelly. K. Nash and R.Bucko moved for the approval of M. Ruwe, Evie Monsay, Theresa Beaty, Mario Saenz, Bernard Arogyaswamy, Robert Kelly, and David Smith to serve. The motion passed by a vote of 18 - 0 - 0.

    D. Discussion of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAC)

    The question of process was addressed. Structurally, the Athletic Advisory Board (a college wide committee with faculty representation by B. Blaszak, S. Ward, R. Kawa, and J. Welter) will review this issue and send it to the College Budget Committee, who then sends it to the College Planning Committee. In reality, the rush is on and the answer to the question of whether faculty are influentially placed may lie in the schedule ahead.

    MAAC wants to select two teams to add to its league in order to gain a north and south divisional structure by the end of December 1997 to begin in the year 2000. The administration wants to respond to this window of opportunity. In light of the fact that two fora were scheduled for the week of September 15, that a site visit by MAAC must be completed by December 1997, and that the trustees have this on their October 17 agenda for a vote, it would seem that faculty do not have an influential position.

    When asked for their interpretation of recent meetings of the Athletic Advisory Board, professors Blaszak and Ward responded that it was their understanding that approval was given to go ahead and investigate this issue. They questioned the issue of the value of regional visibility in light of the cost figures ($800,000 net).

    Other points raised include the following.

  • No revenue of tuition was set against the $800,000.
  • Most of the money ($300,000) will be scholarship aid evenly split between men and women.
  • This is a decision to join MAAC, not primarily to go to division I. Le Moyne will get one cable television sports event every three weeks at no cost in areas where we are trying to recruit.
  • Faculty did not go the fora because they believe this decision is a “done deal.”
  • Our current conference, the Northeast 10, is mostly in New England, from which we do not draw.
  • The MAAC television market is eight times larger.
  • Regarding the “done deal,” the AVP reported that Fr. Mitchell is undecided and that they are both committed to dialogue.
  • How much do media and marketing figure in our future?
  • We are currently on the western edge of a conference that is geographically centered in Manchester, NH, whereas for $800,000 [per year], we could be part of a conference whose center is Syracuse.
  • We have come a long way financially from 18 months ago when Fr. Mitchell talked of cutting faculty, but this is a lot of money
  • The option of bowing out of MAAC will always exist.
  • Admissions cannot say how many students it can yield from a change in athletic conference.
  • The AVP believes that the $800,000 is conservative and that some $150,000 to raise coaches salaries is questionable.
  • Institutional Advancement is receptive to joining the MAAC because it would allow the college to go cities where our alumni live. Receptions could be held at games to fund and “friend” raising.

    A number of options of how to proceed were discussed. The polling of senate members by divisional representatives to see where the faculty are (informed/uninformed/in favor/against) on this issue was chosen over a full senate meeting, a ballot, and relying on the already established Athletic Advisory Committee. The divisional representatives will report their findings to finance committee members and to the senate members who are on the planning committee (Profs. Collins, Nash, Behuniak).

    Respectfully submitted,

    Inga H. Barnello
    September 24, 1997

    Attachments A - G


    Curriculum Committee Report / Barbara J. Blaszak, Chair

    The committee will meet weekly in the fall semester at 4pm on Thursdays in the MBA Conference Room on the second floor of Grewen. The only exception to this will be on October 16 when our meeting will take place in the MBA lounge on the third floor of Reilly Hall.

    We have begun to review the report submitted to us by the CET and hope to have our report ready for the AVP and the Faculty Senate by December. Chairs will shortly receive a letter from the committee asking them to respond to several items of the CET report for which we would like their feedback.

    As you can see by the agenda for the September Executive Board meeting, we have also begun to review the administration’s proposal to eliminate the Physics Department. To this end, our guidelines require us to establish a subcommittee, the membership of which needs to be approved by the Executive Board. Pending approval, the sub-committee will begin its meetings sometime during the week of September 28.

    Finally, department chairs and program directors should be aware that the press deadline for the Spring 1998 semester course booklet is October 15. If there are any courses among their submissions that need Curriculum Committee approval, the paperwork for them should be submitted to me no later than September 24, so that they may circulate for two weeks before the committee acts on them at its October 9 meeting.

    Elections Committee / Sul-young Choi

    1. Voting recertification (Fall, 1997) - Seven part time facultymembers (out of eight who have applied) met the voting qualificationand were added on the voting roll.

    2. Election results:

    Curriculum Committee; Division 1 -- Prof. Thomas Brockelman
    Professional Rights & Welfare Committee:
    Division 2 -- No nominee
    Division 6 -- A run-off election between Prof Daniel Arno and Prof. Thomas Clifton is scheduled
    Division 4 -- No nominee
    Academic Relations, Polices & Procedure Committee: Division 5 -- No nominee

    Finance Committee / Jennifer Glancy

    The College Budget Committee meets for the first time on Tuesday, September 23


    Professional Right & Welfare Report:

    PR&W has not met this academic year. We are still waiting for 3 morepeople(Divisions 2,4 and 6) come forward to serve on the committee.

    Lifang Hsu

    Rank & Tenure / Nancy Ring

    The Committee on Rank and Tenure has received fourteen applications to review this fall.

    I have sent letters to the chair of each department of the applicants to convene the tenured members of the department to discuss the candidate’s qualifications and to write a departmental letter.

    I have written the tenured members of each concerned department inviting their input.

    I have met with Dr. Geisinger concerning the interpretation of scholarship submitted by each department last spring. These will be made available to committee members. It is most important to remember that they are only ancillary. They do not in any way displace the Faculty Handbook. More later on this topic.

    The Committee has met once to discuss policy and interpretation of the Handbook as well as to set a schedule for reviewing applications.

    Research & Development Committee Report (9/17/97)

    The Committee has met twice this academic year. During those meetingswe:

    1. elected a chair (Bill Miller).
    2. agreed on deadlines for applications to the Committee for our various programs. (These were subsequently distributed to all faculty).
    3. scheduled an Open Forum for 4 P.M. on Tuesday, September 23.
    4. discussed changes in the distribution/accounting system for grants.
    5. continued work from last year on revising the Committee's guidelines.
    6. set future meeting dates

    Submitted by Bill Miller


    Resolution on Computing Resources (V. Hevern)

    Whereas, the use of computers has become increasingly central to the
    pedagogical responsibilities of many faculty at every level of instruction;

    Whereas, the use of computers has become increasingly essential to the
    ongoing work of scholarship and other professional activities by many
    faculty; and,

    Whereas, the College Computing Committee's mandate to "advise the Vice
    President for Finance and Treasurer on technological advances, needs, and
    requirements" makes no explicit reference to the academic needs and
    requirements of the faculty or student body; and,

    Whereas, the administrative and accountability structures of the College
    currently place planning, decision making, and ongoing responsibility for
    computer resources outside the scope of the College's Academic division;

    Whereas, past decisions have been made with minimal-to-no-consultation
    with faculty, department chairs, or faculty members on the Computing
    Committee regarding the allocation, type, and future directions of on-
    campus computer resources though such decisions directly affect faculty
    pedagogical responsibilities and scholarly activities;

    now, therefore, the Faculty Senate of Le Moyne College

    (1) calls upon the Academic Vice-President to initiate discussions with
    relevant members of the College community to find more adequate ways in
    which the pedagogical and scholarly needs of faculty may be appropriately
    and in timely fashion voiced and incorporated in the decisionmaking
    processes of the College in respect to computer resource allocation, type,
    and future directions; and

    (2) calls upon the Academic Vice-President to report back to the Faculty
    Senate his observations and recommendations regarding how #1 above has
    been and will be implemented by the end of the 1997-1998 academic year;

    (3) calls upon the President of the Senate to devise a method by which
    timely reports regarding current matters and future directions involving
    computer resources at Le Moyne may be made to the full Senate on a semi-
    annual basis with an opportunity for members of the Senate to comment or
    give feedback on such reports.

    End of HTML version of 9/17/97 Minutes of Faculty Senate Exec. Bd.--IHB

    Created: 9/24/97 Updated: 10/23/97