Governance Council
Monday, February 10, 2014
11:30AM
UNH 300
Joette Stefl-Mabry, Chair
Minutes
Present:
Liang Chu, Saurav Dutta (via teleconference), Cynthia Fox, Yenisel Gulatee, Caitlin
Janiszewski, Ann Kearney, Helene Scheck, John Schmidt, Kabel Stanwicks, Joette Stefl-Mabry,
Zheng Yan
The meeting convened at 11:30 a.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of January 27, 2014 were approved, with minor changes and 1 abstention.
CHAIR’S REPORT
CPCA
Chair Stefl-Mabry shared an official e-mail response from UUP Albany Chapter President Bret Benjamin
regarding the SUNY letter discussed at the last GOV meeting. She reported Bret Benjamin was made aware
his response would be shared.
Senator John Schmidt stated that the response was what was expected: this was a disagreement between the
two sides, and President Benjamin points out that the negotiations were with the state, not with SUNY.
Senator Schmidt argued that GOV is not bound to choose sides, but to solve problems such as this that might
come up. Senator Schmidt suggested the reasonable thing to do is to amend the Charter, as GOV already
drafted, so that there is no problem.
Joette Stefl-Mabry noted that Chair Wagner stressed the decision to restrict review to only academic
employees was driven by UUP and not GOV. It was not GOV’s decision to exclude staff and students from
being on the committee. John Reilly had edited GOV’s rationale to clearly show this. Chair Stefl-Mabry noted
Christine Wagner stated in her correspondence that she does not disagree with UAlbany Legal Counsel John
Reilly’s version of the rationale, but would like to see what GOV thinks. Chair Stefl-Mabry said there were
many changes to the amendment including those read from the resolution as follows:
Rationale:
On September 25, 2013, UAlbany Local Chapter UUP President, Bret Benjamin, requested that the
Senate review the composition of the Council on Promotion and Continuing Appointment (CPCA) in
light of the current contractual agreement between State and UUP. Without passing judgment on the
merits of UUP’s interpretation of the provisions of the contract regarding CPCA composition, the
Governance Committee took this opportunity to review the applicable provisions of the University
Senate Charter (X.7.1) which defines the composition of the CPCA to include, in addition to Teaching
Faculty, one Professional faculty member, one undergraduate student and one graduate student. Based
upon that review, the Governance Council concluded that given the CPCA’s responsibility for the
determination of a faculty member’s eligibility (suitability) for promotion and continuing appointment
and the criteria against which such a determination is made, the CPCA’s membership should
appropriately be limited to Teaching Faculty.
It was agreed that this most recent version was to be reviewed and voted on by GOV members via e-mail.
Chair Stefl-Mabry noted she suggested to Senate Chair Wagner that Brett Benjamin be present at the Senate
meeting to address questions to make it clear that it is not the Senate’s wish to take away the privilege or
opportunity to serve on CPCA.
OTHER REPORTS
The Committee on Assessment of Governance and Consultation
Senator Dutta provided an update regarding the survey. He stated that in December prior to the holiday and
again 2 weeks back, he had sent out revisions survey for review. He proposed that the Committee now look at
the entire survey and, with approval, continue on to next phase. The Committee would need to know what
resources from the University would be provided to complete the survey process, such as IT services and
Survey Monkey set-up.
Chair Stefl-Mabry reported she had a conversation with President that morning, and that she told him she
hoped to have a final version of the survey to share within the week. Senator Dutta suggested he send the
tentative version to GOV for comment that day. It was decided feedback on the survey then be submitted to
Senator Dutta for the first review by Wednesday at 8 p.m. for him to compile changes. Thursday morning he
would then send the survey for a second review, with final responses due to him and by Friday at 4 p.m. This
would allow Chair Stefl-Mabry to set up an appointment with the President for the following week. In that
way, she could have something substantial to report back at the next GOV meeting.
Senator Caitlin Janiszewski questioned how the Committee is planning to distribute the survey eventually.
The thought was to send it out by Survey Monkey and to let people know beforehand by e-mail. A tentative
deadline was suggested to send the survey out the first week of March. While the Committee and Chair SteflMabry would be analyzing the data, the larger question of who is to be the Administrator receiving the data
was addressed. Senator Dutta, when asked to serve in this capacity, stated he was thinking about taking a
sabbatical next semester and would get back by to GOV on that. It was suggested open-ended questions be
limited to no more than 24 words to facilitate qualitative analysis. Senator Janiszewski suggested it might be
helpful to include a description of the upcoming survey in her GSA Newsletter to get a higher response from
students. Chair Stefl-Mabry asked that she share that description with GOV.
Chair Stefl-Mabry noted her concern about the composition of the Committee – that it needs 2 teaching
faculty members to align with what is described in the Charter. The candidates including Pipkin and Hoyt
never agreed or came forward. Senator Dutta reported he did e-mail the 3 additional candidates as well, but no
received no response. He agreed to reach out to others to be sure they adhere to the Charter. Senator Helene
Scheck agreed to serve on the Committee, so that only 1 more teaching faculty member is needed.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Senate Implications of the CNSE Transition
Senator Ann Kearney noted the Committee had identified 3 general items still in question:
1. Long-term implications of resignations by letter of CNSE Senators and committee members
2. Deadline for receipt of the list
3. Effects on students in general and CNSE such as
a. Services such as housing food,
b. Course requirements such as athletics and Gen Ed
c. Senate and Council memberships such as University Life and Academic Councils
It was discussed that the deadline and requirements has largely changed since the partnering of CNSE with
SUNY IT. The deadline probably cannot be by fall and will likely take much longer than that. It was agreed
that the form of the Committee’s recommendations should be a list. GOV members discussed that UAlbany
will have its own Gen Ed courses, while Nano will have its own governance structure. Negotiation as to what
UAlbany will be asked to provide is not yet finalized, which makes it difficult for the Committee to come up
with implications/issues. It was thought that keeping a running list of issues that can be shared if asked was
the best solution.
CAFFECoR Ad Hoc Committee
Senator Fox announced the subcommittee shared with GOV a report that put together the proposed
amendment as discussed in the last meeting. Senator Schmidt clarified that the academic topics he had
brought up, including StartUpNY and Seamless Transfer, are addressed by specific committees; however, it is
the broader issues such as deciding curriculum that CAFFECoR could be advised to consider from the
faculty’s view. For instance, the idea of freedom of expression in talking to students is a broader area of
informing the curricula than the Board of Trustees policies might consider.
Senator Scheck asked for input on how to articulate what it envisions will be the Committee’s role. She
reminded GOV that the Committee’s rationale had been broader to include such issues in the past but ther had
been a more narrow focus in recent years. Senator Janiszewski brought up that, per past CAFFECoR minutes,
the Committee had worked a lot with campus offices to be sure policies cohered and did not contradict one
another. Additionally, the Committee had input regarding student concern for the freedom of speech question
on items such as a genocide awareness project. Senator Scheck recalled that in CAFFECoR’s report in
reviewing itself, it was stated such actions had not been taken up in the past 5 years; however, quite a bit of
examples were found occurring through 2010. It is unclear what was being thought about in the report.
Senator Fox wondered if that was due to the focus shift after 2010 to concern with grievance issues which
previously the Committee had not done at all. The shift of focus seemed to begin the Committee’s questioning
of its functioning, and then its decision to disband.
Senator Fox explained that, thus, the rationale was altered to go back to spirit of the original with a couple
additions:
III. Proposed Revision to Senate Charter
VII.7.3.2.1. The Senate affirms its commitment to the principle that the widest possible scope for
freedom of expression is the foundation of an institution dedicated to vigorous inquiry, robust
debate, and the continuous search for a proper balance between freedom and community
responsibility. Therefore the Senate charges the Council with the following:
VII.7.3.2.1.1 The Council shall take up issues and consider potential problems
concerning matters of academic freedom, freedom of expression and community
responsibility.
VII.7.3.2.1.2 The Council shall set up fora to foster campus-wide dialogue and debate on
matters of academic freedom, freedom of expression and community responsibility.
VII.7.3.2.1.3 The Council shall recommend policies and forward resolutions pertaining
to matters of academic freedom, freedom of expression and community responsibility.
Senator Fox highlighted that part VII.7.3.2.1.2 was new but reflects past practice. Senator Scheck added that
the goal was to suggest the Committee be not only active but proactive, such as Cortland which jumped right
on Startup NY. The wish is not to focus on the negative but to open up dialogue. She noted it was found in
Committee minutes that they did set up dialogues in the past though it was not explicit in the Committee’s
charge.
Chair Stefl-Mabry agreed with the separate issue of it remaining as a standing committee, as an ad hoc
committee has an activation barrier while a standing committee does not, so issues could immediately be
referred there. Such issues would include initiatives like edTPA and StartUpNY that should be reviewed for
what is working and what is not working.
A discussion ensued as to what constitutes consultation regarding the StartUpNY plan. The Faculty By-laws
were consulted, which read as follows:
Article I. Section 2 — Rights and Responsibilities of the Faculty
2.5 Faculty Participation in Advisory Groups Outside of Governance Bodies. Administrators
may choose to advance their leadership vision for the University by constituting special
committees and task forces, selecting individual faculty members because of their experience or
expertise. Ideally, such advisory groups shall be constituted in consultation with the Governance
Council of the University Senate and lines of communication with relevant governance bodies
shall be enunciated. In any case, such groups do not represent the Faculty as a whole and advice
from such groups does not replace approval by or formal consultation with the Faculty. Such
groups may freely provide advice; however, for such groups to be considered part of the formal
consultative process, a majority of the faculty members must either be appointed by, or their
recommended appointment approved by, the Senate Governance Council, as specified in Article
2, Section 5.5, and specific faculty members must be designated to regularly report to the Senate.
The Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate shall be consulted in the composition of all major
University level search committees and committees to select honorary degree recipients.
It was then considered regarding Seamless Transfer that the representatives who were approved by the
Provost and Senate Chair did not go thru GOV, so this would not constitute formal consultation. There was
concern also that StartUpNY and edTPA do not seem to have faculty participation and consultation. There
will be changes in the curriculum for the School Library Program and School of Ed, as mandated by the state
and with which UUP is actively involved. The question posed by Council members was why GOV has not
been doing something. In the request for SUNY-wide involvement, it was suggested this seems to make a case
for CAFFECoR addressing the larger issues that will not be addressed by UPPC, UAC, GAC and not really
by UUP because they will be focused on contractual issues rather than on academic freedom and curricula
issues.
GOV members agreed that the mindset that no part of CAFFECoR worked seemed part of a misconception.
It was pointed to that the Senate debate on the dissolution seemed to miss that there was not disagreement
about whether the current charge was untenable, but rather that other functions were still of value.
A vote was issued and unanimously approved that the new Amendment to CAFFECoR should be sent to the
SEC after given some revisions by the Committee that had been discussed and agreed upon with GOV. The
timeline proposed was that it be sent to SEC by Friday.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Composition of the Council on Promotions and Continuing Appointments/UUP re: UUP’s perspective
on the letter from Ray Haines, SUNY System level Associate Vice Chancellor for Employee Relations
2. Composition of the Committee on Assessment of Governance and Consultation
Both unfinished business items had already been addressed during the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Upcoming schedule re: elections
Senate Secretary Yenisel Gulatee provided a brief overview of the timeline: Elections are planned to take
place March 31st to April 4th. GOV must then publish the preliminary slate of candidates and solicit more
nominations on March 3rd. This request will be sent as an e-mail to the community. Secretary Gulatee stated
she would send the full timeline to GOV members via e-mail for reference. She then relayed the positions to
be filled as follows:
Senators-At-Large
Open Category
Professional Faculty
2 seats
3 seats
Sridda Sittur and Kabel Stanwicks
John Murphy, Michael Jaromin, Jane Kadish
The Vice Chair election announcement will be at a later time. Chair Stefl-Mabry complimented GOV
members on their work and solicited a Vice Chair candidate. The next meeting was set to be held on Monday,
February 24th at 11:30 a.m. in UNH 306.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Elisa Lopez, Recorder