Governance Council
Monday, December 16, 2013
11:30AM
UNH 306
Joette Stefl-Mabry, Chair
Minutes
Present:
Liang Chu, Saurav Dutta, Cynthia Fox, Yenisel Gulatee, Caitlin Janiszewski, Ann Kearney,
Helene Scheck, John Schmidt, Kabel Stanwicks, Joette Stefl-Mabry
Absent:
Zheng Yan
The meeting convened at 11:33 a.m.
CHAIR’S REPORT
Charter Amendment Re Composition of CPCA:
Chair Stefl-Mabry provided an update regarding the Amendment to the Charter. GOV is awaiting word from
Senate Chair Christine Wagner that University Counsel has responded with any changes the Counsel may
require. GOV will then need to officially vote on the new version of the Amendment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of December 2, 2013 were approved with minor changes and with 3 abstentions.
NEW BUSINESS
Committee Reports and Updates
The Committee on Assessment of Governance and Consultation
Members Saurav Dutta and John Schmidt reported that the Committee met last Monday to discuss how to
conduct the survey.
It was noted that the Committee still needs 2 additional faculty members and that professors John Pipkin and
Reed Hoyt had been asked to serve. It was decided that Committee names are to be approved by GOV and
may be done electronically. Senator Dutta asked for additional suggestions should Pipkin and Hoyt be
unavailable to serve, as they both have experience with campus governance but are very busy. Chair SteflMabry also suggested the inclusion of female representation. Recommendations included: Heidi Andrade,
Sara Cohen, Carolyn MacDonald, Susanna Fessler, John Delano, and Steven Messner. Senator Dutta agreed
to send out a reminder invitation to the initial candidates with a response deadline.
Discussion ensued as to who is to be included as part of the survey. It was considered whether or not only
teaching faculty and all other senators and senate council members are to be surveyed. Chair Stefl-Mabry
asked whether those to be surveyed should also include professional faculty and adjuncts. Senator Caitlin
Janiszewski voiced that it might be phrased as “students senator serving on senate or senate councils”. Senator
Helen Scheck inquired as to why not everyone would be surveyed, as does not Governance function for
everyone whether or not they serve in governance? Senator Schmidt explained the thought behind limiting the
scope of those to be surveyed, stating that opening up the demographics would potentially result in receiving
sporadic responses from those who do not have involvement or knowledge of governance. Senator Scheck
added that adjuncts have a stake and do a lot of “heavy lifting”. Senator Dutta agreed with widening the scope
to include teaching and professional faculty. Senator Schmidt agreed that the university relies heavily on
adjuncts, so it seems they should be included. Senate Secretary Yenisel Gulatee voiced her concern that, since
the senate is supposed to include everyone and the senate is tasked to assess its role, the survey should be as
inclusive as possible. Dialog continued regarding concerns that being inclusive would dilute the data. Chair
Stefl-Mabry read the section of the charter outlining the charge of the Committee:
X.1.3. The Committee on Assessment of Governance and Consultation shall evaluate the
effectiveness of governance in representing its constituencies, in addressing issues and
concerns, and in affecting institutional decisions.
X.1.3.1. The Committee on Assessment of Governance and Consultation shall consist of
no more than 8 members, including at least 3 members of the Council, at least 5
Teaching Faculty, and no more than 2 voting members selected from Faculty or Staff
who are not students or Voting Faculty.
X.1.3.2. The Committee shall assess:
X.1.3.2.1. the structure and functioning of governance;
X.1.3.2.2. the responsiveness of governance bodies to their constituencies;
X.1.3.2.3. the effectiveness of Faculty participation in decision-making, as specified
in Article I, Sections 2.2 and 2.4 and Article II, Section 5.2 of the Faculty Bylaws.
X.1.3.3. The Committee shall develop and regularly administer assessment
instruments, conduct data analysis and report findings to the Council.
Senator Schmidt then stated the need to examine if questions in the survey draft are pertinent to adjuncts and
students. Senator Helene Scheck noted that the University has a whole group of lecturers and adjuncts hired
for the writing program who will establish themselves in the future as part of the university community; even
if the senate does not expect a response now, she stated the senate needs to show that their voices matter.
. Senator Janiszewski stressed the importance that the survey go out to everyone and, referring to survey draft
questions 5, suggested anyone would be surprised that the senate asked them to answer that question since
many may not feel they are invited to interact with the senate.
Senator Janiszewski inquired as to the possibility of sending one survey version to students and one to faculty
without them being drastically different; she reviewed and marked questions she believed graduate and
undergraduate students would be comfortable answering; she then volunteered to assist in drafting the student
survey version.
Chair Stefl-Mabry re-read the charge of the Committee to represent constituencies, voicing that eliminating
students and adjuncts would make it seem that some constituents were being eliminated. If that were done
GOV would need to provide rationale for doing so. After more discussion, a consensus was reached that
producing 2 separate surveys was the most inclusive and efficient method.
All members of GOV further reviewed the survey questions and discussed modifications, including the use of
1-5, rating scale, the use of pop-ups that people could click on to get information about each of the councils,
broadening the scope of the survey, and modifying the AAUP modelled questions.
Chair Stefl-Mabry thanked Senator Dutta's committee for great work and noted she would speak further with
Senator Janiszewski regarding the student survey.
Senator Ann Kearney informed GOV that the Committee went through the previous minutes and extracted
what seemed to be issues with the CNSE transition. She reported that the Committee has yet to agree on
additional issues. Issues highlighted so far included: consultation will be needed with CPCA for tenure, etc.
down the pipeline, and stated the belief that this issue still needs to be resolved; a decision will be needed on
what to do with vacant senator seats; consideration of whether a memo regarding resignations sets a precedent
is desired; if yes, suggestions would be needed on what should be put in place to change the current policy.
Chair Stefl-Mabry noted that there was 1 CPCA candidate, but the candidate’s review was not mandatory. She
stated that CNSE supported having the case reviewed, as apparently did the candidate (since it was not a
mandatory review). She reminded GOV , that regarding the issue of the vacant senate seats, a resolution had
been agreed upon at the last meeting when SEC/UFS Chair Christine Wagner had been present.
CAFFECoR
Senator Cynthia Fox reported that CAFFECoR had met a couple of times and formulated a new charge, or set
of charges, not yet complete. The general principle proposed was that CAFFECoR’s role as judicial body be
removed from its charge and the language of the charge, with respect to policies governing the University
community, be modified to reflect the role as an advisory instead of a policy making body.
Senator Fox noted that the point of departure was formed and modified based on the original description of
CAFFECoR. It was suggested that the statements that talk about CAFFECoR’s ‘current affirmation of
commitment that academic freedom is its foundation’ and ‘the council shall take up issues concerning
academic freedom and responsibility’ be included in the new charges. The idea proposed was that the new
charges would enable CAFFECoR to address larger issues, engage the community in discussions regarding
them, and to recommend policies or resolutions on those matters. A discussion ensued suggesting the
Committee could be in place to address such issues as the manipulation of research, issues that had been faced
at another institution.
Chair Stefl-Mabry noted that the Start Up New York plans will be due in January. Senator Fox noted that
examination of the proposed UA Start Up New York Plan would be a good example of what this committee
needs to address. Chair Stefl-Mabry reviewed the proposal details with GOV, such as UAlbany looking for
partners in research. She noted that the President and Provost both assured the University community that
such partnerships would be sought to add to the University’s academic benefit and to bring employment to the
local area, especially where there is economic need. It was proposed that the review of those businesses to be
identified as potential partners could be something for CAFFECoR to address.
The next GOV meeting was scheduled for January 27, 2014 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Chair Stefl-Mabry thanked everyone for their work this fall. Recommendations for next steps, in summary,
were for the Committee on Assessment to finalize the survey, and for CAFFECoR to work on the rationale
and submit it after the first of the year. Chair Stefl-Mabry told The Ad Hoc Committee on Senate
Implications of the CNSE Transition that she would follow up with Senate Chair Christine Wagner
about whether there were any new issues or charges or a specific timeline for this committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Elisa Lopez, Recorder