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

I. Approval of the minutes of March 4, 1998

The minutes were approved as is.

II. Opening comments

AVP Geisinger reported that Middle States accepted our addenda on assessment and on planning. It will not be until the year 2002 that we have to report next.

Prof. Duncan of the Education Department and member of the Alcohol Task Force was present to distribute a summary report of the work of the Alcohol Task Force’s three sub-committees (sanctions, education, and college culture--ATTACHMENT A) and to answer questions. There was some doubt expressed regarding the raising of monetary fines as possibly ineffective. While Prof. Duncan agreed that simply raising the fines would not alone change behavior, she pointed out that the link with the new point system should be more effective.

Prof. Bucko expressed a concern over the double message about Dolphy Day. On the one hand it is somewhat orchestrated and "sponsored" by student life and on the other hand, the school does not recognize it (classes are not canceled). Thus faculty are caught in the middle. Should faculty try to improve a non-school event which is not officially sanctioned by participating in alternative events?

Prof. Collins distributed the report of the Faculty Senate Task Force on Item B, Chairs’ Course Loads. See ATTACHMENT B.

Prof. Collins reported that the College Planning Committee wrote to her regarding the future of food service in Grewen/Reilly with a request for faculty input on this issue. If any faculty are interested in working on this matter, see Mary K. Collins.

Prof. Collins announced that the full senate meeting on April 29 will focus on CAPHE.

III. Committee Reports.

Elections Chair, Prof. Choi, added to her report (ATTACHMENT C) that we have a Secretary/Treasurer for 1998/99, Prof. Evelyn Monsay.

Prof. Nancy Ring, Chair of Rank and Tenure, was asked how one establishes, in an application, the criteria on character. She responded that the Faculty Handbook pretty much covers this. She advised applicants to provide whatever evidence they deem necessary. One faculty member, by asking how one would defend oneself against a bold faced lie, took issue with the Chair’s comment that people are basically aware of the relationships they have with colleagues and should not encounter surprising revelations. The Chair added that this process comes down to the judgment of ones peers on the R&T Committee. She cautioned against presumptions that the committee would not look for more evidence in a case with conflicting information. The committee is free to ask for more information when it is deemed necessary. She added that R&T members are not investigators, but that they are eight reasonable people. She reminded the group that this is about how one conducts oneself collegially as members of committees, for example, and is not a judgment of personal character. There was a call to hear more about what this criterion means. She understands that there may be a need to look again and will take comment on how to clarify this criterion.

It was pointed out that there is an error in the last sentence of her memo of April 3, 1998 (ATTACHMENT D). The sentence should read, “These members should also be given the option of attending a meeting of the tenured members of the department in order to provide input to the departmental letter.” It was asked if this was to be incorporated into the Faculty Handbook. Prof. Ring responded that she wrote it to update people on procedure and interpretation and that the memo is too precise for the Handbook. President Collins thought that perhaps it should be made part of the Handbook because anything promulgating policy should be. Memory is fine for now, but as committee members change, people forget.

Prof. Nash reported for Prof. Clifton that the Professional Rights & Welfare Committee continues to work on the preamble and the benefit sections of the Faculty Handbook in consultation with Dr. Geisinger and Dick Crockett.

Research and Development has made their awards and letters are going out.

IV. New Business

A. ARPP Statement on the Scheduling of Athletic Events

K.Nash and I. Barnello moved the resolution.

Resolved, that the Faculty Senate Executive Board approve the ARPP policy statement regarding the scheduling of athletic events.

M. Ruwe, Academic Dean and member of ARPP, told of the need to send a clear message that these students are students first, athletes second. S. Ward, a member of the Athletic Advisory Committee, mentioned that his committee was not a part of this discussion. Prof. Ward did speak with Mr. Rockwell to get his reaction to the policy statement. While there was a thought about micro-management, Rockwell had no problem with the final draft. He wants to be contacted, if there are any problems with scheduling. He was embarrassed about one of teams leaving so early last year for spring break. The AVP suggested a minor wording change in the first sentence that was acceptable to the movers of the resolution. Because we need to recognize that some events are scheduled by the league and not set by Le Moyne (e.g. playoff games), the word “all” should be changed to “the” in the first statement. K. Nash objected to the involvement of the President of the Faculty Senate in the last statement of the policy. Instead, the Chair of the Athletic Advisory Committee will be consulted. The amended policy statement now read as follows.

1. In order to foster academic excellence and preserve the priority of academics and classroom learning, Le Moyne College should operate under the principle that the scheduling of athletic events should be done with the aim of not interfering with the class attendance of the student-athlete.

2. The Academic Vice-President should request the President of the College to accept and to promulgate this principle as College policy before the completion of the 1997-98 academic year.

3. If the principle is accepted and promulgated, the Academic Vice President should work with the Vice President for Student Affairs to insure its implementation beginning with the 1998-99 academic year. When the scheduling is under the control of Le Moyne College, the student should not be expected to miss any classes. If the scheduling is not completely under the College's control, every effort should be made to depart from campus at a time that will maximize class attendance. As coaches draw up conference schedules in consultation with other schools, they should be guided by the principles stated in the first paragraph.

4. If, at any time, any exceptions to this principle are to be made, the Director of Athletics should consult with the Academic Vice-President and the Chair of the Athletic Advisory Committee before effecting them.The resolution passed by a vote of 15 - 0 - 0.

B. AACSB (ATTACHMENT E)

There are three recommendations. The Advisory Task Force urges the faculty senate to endorse the pursuit of accreditation by AACSB. Regarding governance and the alignment of the management division, the group recommends that all areas be involved in these discussions. Regarding budgeting and prioritization, all departments should be involved in addressing needs and priorities and be incorporated into the entire college. The Curriculum Committee accepts the work of their subgroup on AACSB. What they need is some direction of what happens next and when. A friendly amendment to the resolution was accepted by the two members who moved the resolution (I.Barnello and J. Glancy). The resolution was amended to read as follows.

Resolved, that the Faculty Senate endorse Recommendation 1 of the Report of the Advisory Task Force on AACSB Accreditation: that the College continue in its pursuit of AACSB accreditation as a desirable goal. As to the subsequent two recommendations of the Task Force - those having to do with questions of governance and prioritization of College goals - the Curriculum Committee respectfully requests the opportunity to further discuss the matters involved in these questions and respond no later than the second meeting of the Faculty Senate Executive Board in 1998/99.

Regarding next year’s work, the ongoing task force, which may be recomposed, should deal with these charges. The resolution passed by a vote of 15 - 0 - 0.

Respectfully submitted,

Inga H. Barnello
Secretary
April 23, 1998

(I). Referendum for the guidelines for membership in the curriculumCommittee has passed with 67 in favor, 53 opposed and 2 abstained (122voted among 131 eligible voters).

(II). The following is the election/nomination result for FacSen positions;

(1). President Elect: Prof. William Rinaman Fac Sen secretary/treasurer: No nominee

(2). Executive Board:
Div 1 - Prof. Mario Saenz (Sole nominee)
Div 3 - Prof. Lifang Hsu (Sole nominee)
Div 5 - Prof. Margaret Morgan (Sole nominee)
**Div 4 - Prof. Robert Kelly, Prof. Deborah Tooker

(3). Curriculum Committee:
**Div 2 - Prof. John McMahon, Prof. Roger Lund
Div 4 - Carolyn Bashaw (sole nominee)
*Div 6 - No nominee

(4). Professional Rights and Welfare:
*Div 1 - No nominee
Div 2 - Prof. Julie Olin-Ammentorp (Sole nominee)
*Div 6 - No nominee (one-yr position)

(5). Academic Relations, Policies and Procedures
**Div 2 - Prof. Leonard Marsh, Prof. Ann Ryan
*Div 4 - No nominee
*Div 6 - No nominee
*Div 1 - No nominee (one-yr position)

**: There will be election for these positions starting 4/8(W) and ending at noon, 4/15(W).

*: Nomination period is extended for these positions until 4/8(W) 5 p.m.

The College Budget Committee has not met since our previous faculty senatemeeting; therefore, I have no new information to report. I would be happyto respond to questions.

Jennifer Glancy

We have been meeting each week to determine policies. A revised set ofpolicies concerning confidentiality was distributed yesterday, April 6.We are not asking for any action; if there are questions I will be glad toanswer them.

I have schedule two open fora - April 14 at 4:00 P.M. and April 15 at noon.Both are in the Reilley Room.