February 4, 1998

Members present: I. Barnello, B. Blaszak, R. Bucko, S. Choi, T. Clifton, M.K Collins, J. Consler, A. Eppolito, A. Fischler, K. Geisinger, ex officio, J. Glancy, J. McMahon, W. Miller, K. Nash, N. Ring, B. Shefrin, S. Smith, A. Vetrano.

Members absent: L. Arnault.

Others present: C. Donn, M. Goodisman, M. Miller, M. Ruwe, Jeremy Zhe, Kari Heimerman, Kris Hutson.

President M. K. Collins called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM in the Reilley Room.

[As a courtesy to the representatives of the Student Senate who were present, the first item on the agenda was the first item of new business, the student voting privilege on the Curriculum Committee.]

IV. New Business
A. Student voting privilege on the Curriculum Committee

Motion: J. Glancy moved the following resolution that was brought forward by the officers and K. Nash seconded it.

Resolved: That the following change in the Faculty Senate By Laws be sent to the full membership of the Faculty Senate for a vote of ratification.

The last sentence of Article One, Section IV (Elections of Committees), part 1(Curriculum Committee) of the By Laws of the Faculty Senate should be changed to read “The Committee shall invite the Student Senate to select [representatives] arepresentative to serve as a [non-voting] voting member of the Committee.”

Discussion: Kari Heimerman, Academic Affairs Chair of the Student Senate, and current student representative to the Curriculum Committee, spoke to why it is important to have a voting student representative on this committee. She told a story of a Le Moyne student who was upset over the effort to eliminate the physics major, his growing discouragement, and failed attempts to do anything about it. She pointed out that “talk” does not make one a decision maker. While giving opinions is encouraged here at Le Moyne by the professors, it is the ability to act on these opinions that students desire. Students feel disempowered. While she feels free to offer her perspective at these meetings, she wants to make a difference by being able to vote.

Questions about the history of this issue brought out from the Elections Committee Chair that the 1995 Executive Board approved a similar measure and that a referendum failed for lack of a proper majority, 58 to 26. 78 votes were needed out of the 155 eligible. Today the eligible vote number is smaller at 119 with 12 professors on leave.

When asked about a guarantee of consistent involvement on behalf of students in this position, students responded that the granting of the vote raises the interest to a higher level by virtue of the responsibility and possibility of voting and effecting change. When asked what kinds of change the students expected to effect, Kari responded that if she had a vote, she could be included on the committee’s executive sessions. Jeremy wants students to take more responsibility for their learning and part of that is getting a vote on curriculum.

The issue of the possible inclusion of graduate students was raised. K. Nash moved a friendly amendment (seconded by J. McMahon) to specify undergraduates in this resolution. It was brought out that it is undergraduates that have much more at stake in this matter, that a student senate may one day be enlarged to include graduate students, and that the Student Senate Constitution is in revision. Concerned that a new constitution may conflict, Prof. Nash withdrew the amendment.

The discussion then turned to the issue of voting on the Curriculum Committee and how the student vote affects a committee whose chair does not vote except in the case of a tie. B.Blaszak reminded the group that a Curriculum Committee with a student voting member becomes a committee of 7 voting members that would never have any ties. The chair could never vote. She warned against adding faculty to the committee for fear of making it too big to function. I. Barnello pointed out that the last time this issue went out for a vote, the referendum stipulated that the chair votes and that tie votes are treated as defeats.

Motion: B. Shefrin moved that this friendly amended language, as read from the 1995 referendum, be added. A. Vetrano seconded the motion. The resolution was amended as follows.

Resolved: that the following be sent to the full membership of the Faculty Senate for a vote of ratification.

The student representative to the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee will be a voting member. The chair of the committee will also be a voting member and any proposal will be defeated by a tie vote. This requires a revision of the By-Laws as follows:

The last sentence of Article One, Section IV (Elections of Committees), part 1 (Curriculum Committee) of the By-Laws of the Faculty Senate should be changed to read “The Committee shall invite the Student Senate to select [representatives] a representative to serve as a [non-voting] voting member of the Committee.

Vote: The motion to amend passed.

After J. McMahon advised the Faculty Senate to clarify and resolve how untenured faculty in Division V, specifically librarians, are to be treated in their ability to be elected to committees that require that a tenured member be followed by an untenured one, a vote on the resolution was taken.

Vote: The resolution passed by a vote of 15 in favor, none opposed, and one abstention.

[The meeting resumed its progression through the agenda items.]

I. Approval of the Minutes of November 12 and December 10

November 12: The names of T. Clifton and M. K. Collins were inadvertently omitted from the list of members present. Page 4 contains an error in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph. This sentence should read that Prof. Goodisman “called for the support of this amended proposal...”

December 10: The name of M. K. Collins was inadvertently omitted from the list of members present.

II. Opening Comments

The Faculty Senate noted the sadness of this day and the funeral held on campus for Shane Lynch, the Men’s Lacrosse Coach.

Regarding the new faculty service award announced at convocation by Kurt Geisinger, the AVP noted that there are two steps to take. Procedures must be established. With two other awards to follow, this should be easy. Secondly, he seeks a name for the award. Mary K. Collins announced that she has asked Profs. Robinson, Ring, Bogdan, and Krause to serve on a committee to carry out these initial tasks for the award.

There will be another faculty social on Tuesday, February 24 sponsored by Vice-president Tom O’Neill and Fr. Ed Ryan.

III. Committee Reports (See attachment A)

A. Fischler read the ARPP Committee’s resolution that appeared in his committee’s report.

Motion: K. Nash made a motion that the Executive Board of the Faculty Senate revisit the issue of the elimination of the physical education requirement at the March 4 meeting. B. Blaszak seconded the motion.

Discussion: It was clarified that Robert’s Rules allows a board to revisit an issue during the same year and that it is only within a meeting that it disallows this. One professor objected to the tone of the resolution and the use of an ultimatum. Prof. Fischler explained that the failure of the board to fully discuss and explain why it disagrees with a standing committee warranted this action.

Vote: The motion to revisit ARPP’s resolution to eliminate the physical education requirement passed unanimously 16 - 0 - 0.

Curriculum is still working on the core evaluation. It hopes to have a point by point response to the nine points of the CET report by March.

The Rank and Tenure Chair reported that the news of rank and tenure decisions from the President will be sent to applicants by letter rather than delivered in person. It is a means preferred by the President and one that the Chair supports. One professor reported receiving his letter last year via campus mail. The AVP suggested that it should be possible to ensure that letters go to the home.

IV. New Business

B. Research & Development Committee’s policies and procedures

A. Fischler moved the following resolution and N. Ring seconded.

Motion: Resolved: that the Faculty Senate Executive Board approve the attached Policies and Procedures of the Research and Development Committee.

Discussion: Bill Miller, Chair of Research and Development Committee, announced that item 6 on page 3 should be deleted. (It appears elsewhere in the document.) He then reviewed the history of this issue as one that began a year ago when a similar document was brought forward. AVP Ryan had objected to some parts. The subsequent revisions were circulated to all chairs and others. Since there has been ample time for the community to respond to the document, Prof. Miller saw no reason why it could not be voted on at this meeting.

Section III (Course-Load Reductions), part A (Purpose) does not stipulate a number of reductions to be granted per semester. It was asked if this was intentionally left out. The number was intentionally left out in light of a recent reduction from 3 to 2 per semester and in light of the fact that the chair of R&D does present a budget to the AVP.

In response to the question of whether this document gets incorporated into the Faculty Handbook, Prof. Miller referred to the last page and section IX, which stipulates how the document can be reviewed and changed in the future.

Vote: The motion passed by a vote of 15 - 0 - 0.

The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Inga H. Barnello
February 10, 1998

Attachments: A


The report for the Committee on Academic Relations, Policies, and Procedures is tantamount to what appears in the approved minutes of its meeting of December 3, 1997. Copies of the minutes of this meeting have been posted in the Faculty Senate bulletin folder, on the web page for the Faculty Senate being maintained by Inga Barnello, and on the Senate's bulletin board inthe mailroom.

At its meeting on January 26, the Committee approved the following resolution.

Resolved, that the ARPP Committee's resolution on abolishing the PhysicalEducation requirement failed to receive adequate consideration from theExecutive Board; and

That, such consideration ought to be given, and can still be achieved by avote on the part of the Executive Board to reconsider the ARPP proposalfollowed by a substantial discussion of its merits; and

That, if such consideration is not forthcoming, ARPP will interpret this tomean that its deliberations have little value to the Executive Board, andwill consider suspending deliberations on all remaining items on itsagenda.

Respectfully submitted,
William C. Rinaman, Secretary


Finance Committee Report, 2/3/98

At this point, we anticipate that at their February 27 meeting the Trusteeswill review a proposed increase in tuition of 5.4%. We anticipate noproblem in submitting a balanced budget for 98-99; this budget should includean inflationary component of 2.2% (based on August-August CPI) and theimplementation of the third and final year of revisions to the salary plan.We also expect that the budget will include an additional $100,000 foradjunct faculty members (representing an increase in the base salary paidto adjunct faculty members). The College (that is, the vice-presidents and the Planning Committee) need to make decisions about how to use available funds in the 98-99 budget most effectively for the vitality of the College.

Jennifer Glancy, Chair, Faculty Senate Finance Committee


Report of Rank and Tenure Committee by N. Ring

The Rank and Tenure Committee has sent its letters of recommendation to the President. Applicants will be informed by mail of the President's decision. This will happen after the Board of Trustees meet at the end of February.

The committee is meeting every Thursday this spring to work on matters concerning the handbook.

Page maintained by Inga H. Barnello, barnello@maple.lemoyne.edu. Created: 2/11/98 Updated: 2/12/98