All members were present: L. Arnault, I. Barnello, 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, B. Robinson, N. Ring, B. Shefrin, S. Smith, A. Vetrano. Members excused for part of the meeting: R. Bucko, T. Clifton. Others present: T. Brockelman, P. Campbell, C. Donn, R. Flower, E. Hayes, R. Rockwell, R. Romeu, M. Ruwe, E. Ryan, M. Saenz, I. Tai

President Mary K. Collins called the meeting to order at 4:35PM in the Reilley Room.

The Agenda was realigned to the following.

I. New Business
A. Physical education requirement
B. Curriculum Committee
II. Approval of Minutes of February 4, 1998
III. Opening comments
IV. Committee reports (including the Rank & Tenure document)

I. New Business

A. Physical education requirement

Motion: A. Vetrano moved the following resolution and A. Eppolito seconded it.

Resolved, that the Physical Education requirement for all Le Moynestudents be eliminated effective for the fall 1998 semester, but that the Athletic Department must offer, for interested students, at least two non-credit optionalmini-courses on different recreational activities each semester in orderto foster the notion of lifelong participation in physical activity.

Discussion: A. Fischler began by asking Athletic Director Dick Rockwell to speak to this issue. Mr. Rockwell’s comments focused on what he termed peripheral issues to his written rationale. He is absolutely in favor of physical education, but is working under limitations and changing trends that he went on to describe.

His staff had been teaching physical education in the mornings, a time when his staff could be visiting high schools. It has been required of his coaching staff to have physical education degrees, to teach phys. ed. classes, recruit students on the road, coach, and to supervise the building certain hours. It has become an untenable task to schedule all of this, especially with the extension of building hours these past few years and increase in recruiting budget to help in enrollment management.

Mr. Rockwell wants latitude in the hiring of coaches. He does not want to be limited to selecting coaches from those that have physical education degrees. That is not how people come to coaching nowadays. The present basketball coach is Phi Beta Kappa out of Williams College. Coaches today, by and large, are not phys ed. majors. He wants to find the best coaches possible in the regional searches he conducts in order to get people who are articulate spokespersons and solid citizens. Image enhancement counts, as the athletic staff of a college are the ones most quoted in the media.

Although it is perhaps against the Jesuit tradition to eliminate physical education, he urged that we change with changing times. This resolution is the best, most reasonable way to serve the needs of our students within the fiscal restraints of the times. He reassured the group that no one in athletics is trying to get out of any work. He logs over 50 hours a week in his job and pointed out that the coaching staff log more than that right now.

After Mr. Rockwell left, the discussion reviewed the issues of the cancellation of classes last Fall, the spirit of cooperation between athletics and academics here at Le Moyne, and alternatives to dropping the requirement. There was some resignation to the reality that we cannot recruit coaches as it is done nowadays and have a physical education teaching staff, too. Prof. Fischler reminded the group that the two bases for ARPP’s support of this resolution were that phys. ed. is not really a requirement here with all the exemptions that are granted and secondly, that a fitness craze that has swept the country.

Votes: Prof. Robinson called the question and N. Ring seconded it. The vote to call was 12 to 4 in favor. The resolution passed with 9 votes in favor, 6 in opposition, and 1 abstention.

B. Curriculum Committee report of the core evaluation (Attachment A)

Motion: N. Ring moved the following resolution and S. Choi seconded it.

Resolved, that the Faculty Senate Executive Board endorses the conclusions of the Curriculum Committee’s 2/18/98 report on its deliberations of the Core Evaluation Team's 8/97 report and directs the Curriculum Committee, with the Academic Dean, to explore solutions to the unresolved issues of the core curriculum evaluation stipulated in the 2/18/98 report.

Discussion: Prof. Robinson, Chair of the Curriculum Committee, opened the discussion with a summary of her committee’s processes and hopes. She stressed that it is most important that the core curriculum be given the attention due it from all departments. The committee believes that we should start with an internal assessment, identify what we do well, get a coordinator with a high degree of status, and go from there.

A discussion followed that was lengthier than what can reasonably be captured without a transcription. Essentially the committee came looking for a clarification of its charge regarding the core evaluation. Some board members are concerned about the establishment of a core coordinator, in that, it is akin to the establishment of another department and should not be decided upon tonight within this resolution. Prof. Robinson explained that the committee sees this core evaluation process as akin to the evaluation of a department by the Curriculum Committee. In such a situation, there is a department to respond to the written report of the outside evaluators. Timing was another significant issue that was raised. There is concern that this core evaluation is taking too much time and is in need of a deadline.

An attempt to table the resolution to the next meeting failed. It was then clarified that the initial motion was written by the Faculty Senate officers as something to start with and is not to be construed as an approval of number 9 or anything else. In the end, friendly amendments were accepted in order to come up with a resolution that sets up a process and a deadline without endorsing specific solutions.

Amended motion: Resolved, that the Faculty Senate Executive Board receive the Curriculum Committee’s 2/18/98 report on its deliberations of the Core Evaluation Team's 8/97 report and direct the Curriculum Committee, with the Academic Dean, to provide a detailed plan which resolves the unresolved issues with a time table of the process that will have a new core curriculum in place by Fall of 2000.

Votes: The question was called with a vote of 15-0-0. The resolution passed by a vote of 13-0-2.

II. Approval of the minutes of February 4, 1998

The minutes were approved without any additions or corrections.

III. Opening comments

The AVP outlined and explained his upcoming changes in the staffing of academic affairs. Prof. Robinson expressed that she was appalled that the medical students in the Physician Assistant Program will be handled by someone who does not know the field. AVP Geisinger responded that the new coordinator will work with those that want her help and will not take over any program that professors wish to retain. With a site visit coming up in October for accreditation of the PA Program (it has provisional accreditation currently), Prof. Robinson is also very concerned that the Program no longer has Dr. Henry to oversee it. The AVP assured her that it is under active discussion.

Prof. Collins announced that two of the task forces working on equity issues have reports.

The next faculty social will be sponsored by Fr. Mitchell on March 25.

IV. Committee reports (See attachments B - D )

Prof. Choi announced that in addition to the regular elections, there will be a special election for a one-year replacement for Prof. Bucko who will take a full-year sabbatical.

Professional Rights and Welfare Committee will be working on travel and retirement next. The committee will meet with the college attorney to discuss the philosophical issues of the legal import and contractual nature of the Faculty Handbook and to review the language of the document.

Prof. Ring presented the Rank and Tenure Committee’s report on confidentiality (ATTACHMENT D). The Chair stated that it is for informational purposes, since it adds nothing new in policy. Prof. Glancy pointed out that it seems like a change in policy, not simply a clarification. She then read the Handbook under section II. C. 2 E. Prof. Consler, who chaired the 1994 group on revising rank and tenure procedures, disagreed that this R&T memo was a change in policy. The words being read aloud did not match his recollection of the 1994 revisions or the version of the Handbook that he had in front of him. It appeared that the AVP’s office is working with an outdated version of the Handbook.

Prof. Ring noted the responses and will report back to this body.

Adjournment came at 6:50 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Inga H. Barnello
Secretary
March 11, 1998

N.B. Attachments A and D are not available in HTML format.--IHB

(A). Voting on the referendum for the revising guidelines for themembership in the Curriculum Committee is beginning Feb. 23 andending at 4:30 p.m. on March 6.

(B). Tentative Election Dates: Spring 1998

Spring Recess: 3/15(Sun) - 3/22(Sun)

1) Senate Officers Ref. By Laws
i) Nominations: 3/3(Tu) - 3/9(M) *4/1 (II.2)
ii) Elections: 3/23(M) - 3/30(M)

2) Executive Board of Faculty Senate
a) Divisions 1, 3, 5 *4/15(III.A)
i) Nominations: 3/31(Tu) - 4/6(M)
ii) Elections: 4/8(W) - 4/15(W)
b) At-Large Representative *5/1 (III.B)
i) Nominations: 4/15(W) - 4/21(Tu)
ii) Elections: 4/23(Th) - 4/29(W)

3) Rank and Tenure Committee
(one At-Large position / Divisions 3, 5) *5/1 (IV.2)
i) Nominations: 4/15(W) - 4/21(Tu)
ii) Elections: 4/23(Th) - 4/29(W)

4) Curriculum Committee
(Divisions 2, 4, 6) *4/15 (IV.1)
i) Nominations: 3/31(Tu) - 4/6(M)
ii) Elections: 4/8(W) - 4/15(W)

5) Professional Rights and Welfare
(Divisions 1,2,6) *4/15 (IV.3)
i) Nominations: 3/31(Tu) - 4/6(M)
ii) Elections: 4/8(W) - 4/15(W)

6) Academic Relations, Policies and Procedures
(Divisions 2, 4, 6; Special one-year election: Div 1) *4/15 (IV.1)
i) Nominations: 3/31(Tu) - 4/6(M)
ii) Elections: 4/8(W) - 4/15(W)

Submitted by Sul-young Choi,
Chair.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT C
Rank and Tenure Committee Report

The Rank and Tenure Committee has been working on procedural policies. Thefirst of these to be finished has been distributed to you. The copy you received this morning (ATTACHMENT D) replaces the one you received last week.

There is a slight adjustment as it appears on the agenda. We did not forward a resolution to be voted on. We wanted, as a matter of professional courtesy to begin our distribution of procedural policy with the Faculty Senate and answer any questions anyone may have. We are not asking forapproval or for a vote. Nothing has changed. We are simply sharing with you our work of the last few weeks. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

__________________________________________________________________________

R&D Committee Report

R&D Meeting Reports for Spring '98

January 16:
We discussed the proposal of the CAPHE Committee regarding the invigoration of research and development opportunities for faculty. While supporting efforts to encourage faculty development, our Committee members expressed general wariness toward the creation of a new administrative position. Our Committee conveyed its suggestions and reservations to the CAPHE Committee via Laverne Higgins, our liaison.

February 3: We met to consider applications for Course Load Reductions for the Fall '98 semester. After considerable discussion, we decided to extend the February 2 deadline for applications until February 9 because there was a discrepancy between the deadline listed on old forms and the current deadline. We also agreed to notify all full-time faculty members of this decision (by campus mail and LMC_Chat). Included in the notification (which went out February 4) was a reminder of the deadlines for 1998 Summer Stipends (February 18) and Spring '98 Grant Proposals (March 2), both of which are firm.

February 12: Once again we met to deliberate on Course Load Reduction applications. We received 6 applications, which we proceeded to rank order. Before reaching a final decision on our recommendations, we agreed that Chair Bill Miller and any other members who wished would meet with AVP Kurt Geisinger to request that the Committee be allowed to grant three reductions, rather than the two currently allotted. The date for the meeting is Thursday, February 19 at 1:15 P.M.

February 24: We first finalized our recommendations for course load reductions for Fall '98, proposing to the Dean that three reductions be granted, one to be funded using money from R&D's budget. We then considered applications for Summer Stipends. There were only two applicants and we can fund up to six stipends. We recommended that both of the applicants receive stipends.

March 10: This is our next meeting date. The main agenda item is consideration of the applications for Research and Development grants. This will end our program administration business for the academic year. In future meeting(s), we plan to look at the general question of how we can better serve the research and development needs of the faculty. Included will be discussion of whether our total resources are adequate and also whether the allocation scheme for resources is optimal.

submitted by Bill Miller

6