UNIVERSITY POLICY AND PLANNING COUNCIL
2006-07 CHAIR: STEVEN MESSNER
OCTOBER 24, 2006
MEETING MINUTES
PRESENT:
Tom Bessette, Roger Bisbing, Katharine Briar-Lawson, Randall Craig
Diane Dewar, Jil Hanifan; Cliff Kim, Jon Jacklet, Irene Lurie, Matthew Martens,
David McCaffrey, Steven Messner, Kim Murray, Melinda Spencer, Edelgard
Wulfert
MINUTES:
Minutes from September 21 were unanimously approved with corrections for two
typographical errors
REPORT FROM ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

Reported on the alleged sexual assault indicating the media has been pushing the story
line. Provost Herbst will stay informed of the situation and keep the public apprised of
the case while maintaining appropriate confidentiality. Provost Herbst met with the
press earlier today for another briefing. Some student information sessions are planned
for today.

Provost Herbst announced to the University Senate the formation of a task force to
address acquaintance/date rape on campus to make recommendations. The aim is to
foster a good partnership between faculty, students, and the community.

The Chair affirmed that the Provost has made an effort to keep Senate leadership
informed of the situation and the task force.

The ads for the position of Dean of Public Health have been submitted and were posted
in the October issues of relevant publications. The Search Committee will have its first
meeting November 20. After discussion, it has been decided not to use a search firm
since networking would be more effective for this position. Dr. Pastides, UAlbany Alum
and a member of the Board of Visitors, has submitted leads. Quite a few applications
have been received with strong backgrounds.
CHAIR’S REPORT
FUTURE PROJECTS

A few issues were brought to the Senate Executive Committee and Senate meetings
that are relevant to UPC. Matters that could potentially involve major facilities
include:
1) Construction of a new football stadium;
2) Construction of a new School of Business.
These would have implications for the campus in terms of use of geographic space
and also the issue of operating costs. The Chair raised the issue of governance’s
involvement in these matters with the Executive Committee. The feeling was that
1
since these two projects are in the early developmental stage, there is no need at
this time to take formal action. In the future, UPC and the Facilities Committee will
be involved in these two projects.
OMBUDS OFFICE

From the last meeting the ad hoc Committee on Student Satisfaction had a number
of recommendations. Later in the meeting the council will be discussing the Ombuds
Office.
DATA ON COURSE EVALUATIONS

One of the recommendations was not only collecting SIRF evaluations on the web,
but making these more publicly available. Some issues have been raised about how
to put them in context. This will require further discussions and has been tabled
until some of the other recommendations have been addressed.

The Council on Academic Assessment (CAA) has also been deliberating on this issue,
approaching it from a slightly different standpoint. They have been considering how
making this information available would be very useful to instructors by providing a
frame of reference for the evaluations. Chair Messner spoke briefly with Bill Lanford,
Chair of CAA, at the Senate Meeting about UPC’s discussion on this issue. Dr.
Lanford indicated he would keep Chair Messner informed as CAA developed a
recommendation. This information will be shared with UPC to coordinate with CAA.
ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES DOCTORAL PROGRAM

The Chair received an email from Marjorie Pryse, Dean of Graduate Studies. She
transmitted a memo from Professor Gary Yukl, who is the Director of the
Organizational Studies Doctoral Program. An issue came up last year about
suspending admissions to the program. At the time, UPC felt that since this is an
important decision with implications for the viability of the program, it should be
discussed over the summer. The Director has sent a request to Dean Pryse that the
program be suspended. Dr. Messner will circulate the memo from Professor Yukl.

UPC is charged with reviewing proposals that affect the continuation of programs.
Dr. Messner will place this item on the agenda for the next meeting and invite Gary
Yukl and Marjorie Pryse to participate in the discussion. Dr. Messner also suggested
that Jon Bartow might attend to assist with any technical issues.

The same memo went to GAC and is being considered in a parallel manner.
OLD BUSINESS
UAC PROPOSAL FOR AN UNDERGRADUATE OMBUDS OFFICE

At the last meeting, UPC endorsed the concept of an Undergraduate Ombuds Office
and agreed to transmit this endorsement to UAC. Chair Messner drafted some bill
language based on the Senate Bill for the Graduate Ombuds Office, forwarded it to
Dr. Wulfert for her input and sent it to UAC Chair John Monfasani. The Chair
received a response email from Carolyn MacDonald, who was chairing UAC on behalf
2
of Dr. Monfasani. The Chair forwarded the email to UPC members to develop a
response to UAC. The Chair asked Dr. Wulfert to provide some further background.

Dr. Wulfert had a brief conversation with Sue Faerman regarding the creation of an
Undergraduate Ombuds Office. It appears that the wording in the rationale (3rd &
4th paragraph on the last page) created a misconception that the Undergraduate
Ombuds Office would be dealing with academic issues and duplicating services
already being provided. In fact, the objective is to create an informal mechanism
where students who have an issue pertaining to the undergraduate experience in
general, e.g., fellow students, faculty member/advisor, could go to an individual who
understands the university and could in an informal manner give some advice or
guidance. To clarify this misunderstanding, Dr. Wulfert made the following
suggested changes to the rationale:
o
Text of paragraph 3 – to replace the words “academic issues” to “university
experiences”.
o
Text of paragraph 4. Eliminate the phrase, “The specific focus on academic
issues… ”
After discussion, members agreed on the following:

Dr. Wulfert, along with another UPC member from the summer ad hoc committee,
will bring the proposal back to UAC with some clarification of language to better
define the role of the Undergraduate Ombuds Office. (No formal motion required)

If UAC agrees to the proposal with the clarification of language, the UPC Chair will
circulate via email actual legislation before UPC goes forward with the proposal to
the Senate.
PEER EVALUATION OF TEACHING

The Chair had circulated text for a resolution to serve as a vehicle to focus
discussion and had encouraged the Council to think about alternatives or objections
since this is a significant change from our current practice.
An open discussion was held. Following are some highlights:

A question was raised about whether the proposal addresses issues surrounding the
quality of instruction by adjuncts, who are often graduate students.

Proponents emphasized that the proposal symbolizes that we take teaching very
seriously. We require independent review of scholarship; the proposal implements a
similar practice for teaching. The overarching objective is to promote a culture of
teaching and learning.

Several members expressed a hope that any change would foster efforts to improve
teaching, perhaps with the assistance of a newly reconstituted CETL.

The point was raised that junior faculty are given the message that research is
clearly the most important consideration for tenure and teaching is second. Until
3
there is tangible evidence that someone is denied tenure because of teaching, it will
remain the second priority.

A member noted that policies currently in discussion within the Labor Management
Committee would require that the teaching of part-time faculty be evaluated each
time they are reappointed, which would result in part-time faculty being evaluated
more frequently than tenure line faculty. Part-time faculty have been receptive to
the evaluation process since it provides necessary support materials for their
teaching portfolios.

The proposed process should be used as another resource to supplement a faculty’s
portfolio but not take the place of established evaluation processes within
departments & units.

A concern was raised that the proposal is likely to encounter significant resistance
because people do not look forward to being evaluated. The proposal might be
more acceptable if it includes feedback early in the faculty member’s appointment
and not just before the Promotion & Continuing Appointment decision.

It would be beneficial to have some standardized criteria to make evaluations more
comparable.

A member suggested that with the arrival of the new director of CETL and its new
improved program, the evaluation might be done in conjunction with this office.
Others felt that it is best to not have this connected to an administrative office.

The point was raised that not all departments pay the necessary attention to
teaching evaluations. We are not going to be able to change departmental culture
overnight. This resolution could be the starting point.
The Chair asked the group, what is the next step? This is a rough draft to facilitate
discussion. He observed that many outstanding issues still need to be addressed.

A former CPCA member suggested that the resolution be sent to CPCA for their
comment.
The Chair indicated he would “clean up” the resolution and transmit to the Chair of
CPCA.

Another consideration was raised that UAlbany is a unionized campus. There are
certain requirements for promotion and continuing appointment. Any resolution
must stay within the union’s contractual guidelines. It was suggested that either
Candace Merbler or Steve Beditz would be a good resource to answer specific
contractual questions regarding the resolution.
The Chair indicated that he would seek input concerning union matters.
NEW BUSINESS – No new business
4
Motion made to adjourn at 4:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Kathleen Spawn
5