FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE BOARD
October 26, 1994
Faculty Lounge 7:30 P.M.
William Barnett, Carolyn Bashaw, Susan Behuniak, Mary L. Collins, JohnConsler, Anthony Eppolito, Vincent Hevern S.J., Mark Karper, Robert Kelly,David Moore, Kathleen Nash, Nancy Ring, Ted Shepard, David Smith, AnthonyVetrano,
Excused: Bernard Arogyaswamy, Harjit Arora, Cliff Donn
Guests: John Freie, Lynn McMartin, James Simonis.
President David Moore called the Faculty Senate Executive Board to order at7:30 pm.
MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING:
A copy of Cliff Donn's financial report was missing from the copy of theMinutes distributed to the Executive Board previously. This error was rectifiedand a copy given to all Board members this evening. Susan Behuniak will attendExecutive Board meetings and continue in office during her sabbatical. Thus,she will not need to be replaced on the Board. Notice to that effect in theSeptember Minutes under "Preliminary Announcement" was in error. With thiscorrection and the inclusion of Donn's report, the Minutes of the prior meetingwere accepted unanimously.
Lynn McMartin, Director of Human Resources, presented a informationalreview of the current and projected operations of the College's Health Plans tothe Executive Board at the behest of Senate Pres. Moore. She distributed aneight-page document on the current programs and the 1995 renewals, all of whichwill be more widely presented at the November 3rd Health Benefits Fair for theCollege's faculty and staff. Discussion of the implications of certain changesto financing of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield program followed as well as thecurrent status of the College's dental plan coverage.
Academic Vice President Report: William Barnett
1. Middle States Association Reaccreditation Self-Study and Visit.Dr. Iriarte from the Middle States Association will be visiting Le MoyneCollege on November 7th. At that time he will meet with various members of theadministration and faculty. The Steering Committee which will direct theself-study has been finalized. It will consist of Patricia Chrosniak, MaryMcDonald, Tom Clifton, and Shawn Ward (Committee Chair) from the Faculty andBill Barnett, Edmund Ryan SJ, Brian Lucey, Barbara Maylone, and ____?___from the Administration. They will meet with Dr. Iriarte on November7th.
2. Academic Reorganization Plan. The AVP has submitted to Fr.Mitchell the plan for academic reorganization which he discussed at theprevious Executive Board meeting. This includes the provision of two nationalsearches: (1) a Dean of Enrollment Management who will replace the Director ofAdmissions with expanded responsibilities and (2) an Academic Dean. Dr. NorbHenry will be appointed as Assistant to the Academic Vice-President. Overall,no additional administrative personnel will be added through this plan.
Faculty Senate Committee Reports
Curriculum: Carolyn Bashaw
A variety of decisions involving nine proposed new courses and threeproposed programs were among the matters taken up by the committee.
Elections: Ted Shepard
John Consler was elected to replace Dan Orne as the Division VIrepresentative.
Faculty Rights & Welfare: Tony Eppolito
The committee has prepared suggestions to the parties involved in acurrent grievance.
Finance: Cliff Donn [report will be submitted by Cliff soon]
Mark Karper represented Cliff Donn who was not able to attend this Boardmeeting. He supplemented a report by Cliff previously distributed via the VAXin the lmc_chat forum.
Rank & Tenure: Bernard Arogyaswamy (via report submitted toPres. Moore)
The committee has begun work on the applications.
Research & Development: Harjit Arora (via report by AVP)
The AVP reported he has received recommendations for Course Reductions for1995-96 and understands that the R&D committee has moved on to considerrecommendations for Development grants.
Academic Relations, Policies, and Procedures: This committee has not yetbeen constituted.
1. Proposal of the Task Force on Rank and Tenure: How to Proceed
Mark Karper led off the Executive Board's deliberations concerning how toproceed with the proposals of the Task Force on Rank and Tenure. He noted thatan Open Forum for faculty has already been held. Comments and suggests havebeen solicited. Two new statements have been received: (1) Suggested Revisionsof Section 2 of the proposed Preamble as submitted by Bill Shaw and alreadycirculated to the Faculty and (2) a letter from Tom Curley supportingcertain parts of the proposal by the Task Force which Mark will circulate tothe Executive Board. Mark noted that the Senate Officers had discussed the TaskForce proposal with the AVP at a meeting the previous Tuesday.
Mark moved that the Executive Board should submit to the full Faculty forits consideration and vote the proposals of the Task Force on Rank and Tenurewith the following voting options: (1) the Preamble as formulated by the TaskForce, (2) the Preamble as formulated by the Task Force and amended by BillShaw, or (3) no Preamble. In the event that no one of these three optionsreceived a majority vote of the Faculty, a runoff vote would be held betweenthe two options receiving the highest vote. For adoption a simple majority isrequired since these would be changes in the Faculty Handbook rather than theConstitution of the Faculty Senate which would require a 2/3rd vote. TheConstitution sets up requirements for membership on and election to the Rankand Tenure Committee rather than specifies the criteria which the R&TCommittee must follow. This move was seconded and opened for discussion.
John Consler indicated that the six members of the Task Force, who workedfrom November 30, 1992 onward (Janet Bogdan, Joe Durr, Doug Egerton, MaryMcDonald, Krys Batcho, and John Consler), spent one-and-a-half to two years incarrying out their mandate. In a cover letter of February 4, 1994 to FacultySenate President M. K. Collins, the Task Force noted the wide range of sourcessolicited to guide its deliberations. The Task Force was impressed by thePreamble approach used by quality competing colleges (e.g., Hamilton andColgate) and carefully prepared a Preamble to clarify and expand upon itssuggested criteria. The Task Force report does not include a list of all theitems which were considered and excluded after deliberation. Some other issuesnot explicitly settled in the report may best be dealt with at a latter time,e.g., the differential of pay levels for various academic ranks. The Task Forcerecommended that these proposals be distributed to the faculty for instructionand discussion which has now been done. A faculty-wide referendum should beheld on the basic ideas expressed in the report. Each item in the referendumshould be submitted to the faculty via a simple "Yes" or "No" vote. The TaskForce did a compromise on various issues in the course of its deliberations.The Task Force stands behind the proposals as written. John added that theExecutive Board was reminded that the ultimate responsibility for acting uponthe Task Force report following a referendum of the faculty remained with theBoard (unless it explicitly binds itself to accept the vote results asdefinitive). Pres. Moore interjected a reminder that ultimately the Board ofTrustees was responsible for final adoption of R&T proposals as submittedat the recommendation of the Faculty Senate.
Susan Behuniak recommended that no additional materials be submitted atthis point to the faculty for their vote in this referendum beyond theproposals contained in the Task Force report. She emphasized the importance ofresponding to the work of the Task Force and reminded the Executive Board thata decision had been made at the end of the last academic year to follow aspecific course of action procedurally, viz., an open forum followed bya referendum vote on the proposals as submitted by the Task Force. Anyadditional proposals can be dealt with by the Executive Board separately.Another Open Forum would be needed to consider any counter-proposal to the TaskForce report proposals. Vin Hevern reminded the Board of the AVP's interventionat the last meeting about other alternatives regarding R&T which have cometo his desk and the Board's agreement that they would be dealt withindependently of the Task Force proposals. He supported Sue Behuniak'sposition. Anthony Vetrano noted the difficulties which might emerge if everyproposal was faced with alternative votes.
While not altering the thrust of his previous remarks, John Conslercounseled that the Board listen carefully if there was a significant proportionof the Faculty opposed to the Task Force's formulation of scholarship in thePreamble. To ignore this might do more harm than good and we need to know howstrongly the feeling is for the alternative proposal regarding scholarship.Hence, John is "willing to live with" Mark's proposal. The Executive Board doesnot have to believe that the Task Force was "infallible" on this issue. NancyRing wondered if the Task Force proposals could be presented without otheroptions and see if the proposed Preamble is voted down. Bob Kelly noted thatthe Board (1) had to show absolute respect for the work of the Task Force and(2) not "squelch" a good alternative proposal. Hence, perhaps the two Preamblescould be voted on separately but in the same referendum. If only one got amajority, the sense of the Faculty would be very clear; if both got accepted, arunoff could be held; and, if both were rejected, we would also have an answer.It was noted that Mark already had a motion on the floor. Mark wondered aboutthe procedural difference between considering Bill Shaw's proposal alone versusopening up the discussion to various competing proposals. The AVP reminded theBoard that none of the R&T items he has on his desk conflict with the TaskForce's proposals. Pres. Moore noted that the Board had asked for anycounterproposals be submitted in writing as Bill Shaw did.
Susan Behuniak noted that turning down the submission of Bill Shaw'sproposal for a Faculty referendum vote did not mean his proposal would not beconsidered by the Board at another time. Mary L. Collins reminded the Board ofthe Task Force's extensive solicitation of Departmental input in itsdeliberations and how far out of its way the Task Force went to listen todepartmental and other input. She also noted that the Open Forum was not heldat an optimal time for input by faculty from various departments including herown: for example, prior commitments (including teaching) excluded EducationDepartment faculty from being present at the Forum.
Mark called his proposal while accepting Susan Behuniak's amendment to hisproposal as a friendly one. He noted certain technical wording changes inHandbook language would have to be made before a faculty vote was held.A vote to end discussion lost. John Consler was then asked if the Task Forcewas satisfied that Mark's rendition of its report was faithful to its intent.Mark intervened that materials regarding mentoring junior faculty anddeveloping departmental guidelines on scholarship opportunities would besubmitted as "Policies" in the faculty vote after John's urging they beconsidered in some fashion. John believes that Mark's formulation is faithfulto the Task Force's report.
The proposal was called: that Mark's original delineation of the proposalsof the R&T Task Force be submitted to the Faculty for their consultativevote without the counter-proposal of Bill Shaw regarding the Preamble. The votewas 14 in favor, 0 opposed, with 1 abstaining. The Election Committee wascharged with carrying out this vote.
1. Mary L. Collins raised the question of the status of the new AcademicRelations, Policies, and Procedures Committee. Mark noted that he just gottenthe final report too late for consideration this evening. Mary requestedclarification regarding eligibility for membership and any term limits on thiscommittee.
2. Mary L. Collins noted that Division V is grouped with the Library,Economics, and Computer Science. The number of tenured people in this Divisionis so small that few are available to serve. Hence, some reorganization needsto be completed in the Constitutional alignment of the divisions. Mark notedthat this will require a full constitutional vote change.
3. Nancy Ring is chair of an ad hoc committee on something which theSecretary could not determine from listening to the tape of the meeting norcould be certain what was decided. (Her voice was too faint.) Hence, she willhave to give me a re-report on her intervention here.
The meeting was adjourned gratefully at 8:35 PM.
Vincent W. Hevern, SJ
14 November 1994