Governance Council
University at Albany, New York
Monday November 14, 2005
Meeting Minutes CC Terrace Lounge 4:00pm – 5:30pm
Present: S. Birge, E. Cupoli, D. Dewar, R. Hoyt, A. Israel, A. Lyons, J. Pipkin, R. M. Range, S. Turner,
S. Wood
Guests: Sheila Mahan, Wayne Locust
Minutes: The minutes from the 10/17/05 meeting were approved with some wording corrections.
Chairs Report:
Follow-up to the selection committee recommendations for the Distinguished Teaching and
Service Professorships:
D. Dewar, was please to report that the Executive Committee had approved the motions proposed at the
November 7th Executive Committee meeting. This clarified the role of Governance in terms of populating that
committee, and the proposed slate of members. There is now a slate of committee members, D. Dewar has
contacted most of them, and most have said yes. The proposal also changed the structure of the committee
itself, including the year terms. It was proposed that one person on the committee serve for one year, the next
person for 2 years and the 3rd person for three years, in an effort to keep a rolling history of committee
members. Also the chair is to be selected by the committee itself. However, there is a good chance that R.
Bosco will serve as chair this year, due to his experience. W. Hedberg would also serve this year for continuity.
The entire committee will consist of the chair of the Senate, 3 distinguished service professors, 3 distinguished
teaching professors, all in concurrence with the President, as well as 1 ex-officio chosen by the president, 1
undergraduate student and 1 graduate student. D. Dewar extolled the Governance Council on doing such a
wonderful job. The Council did such a good job, that they have been asked to re-vamp the other award
committee’s as well.
Presentation concerning the retention committee membership by Sheila Mahan and Wayne Locust:
Much discussion was generated during the presentation, which began with W. Locust asking for the Council’s
participation in a new retention committee. W. Locust reported that the focus on retention is missing
particularly for undergraduate students. The committee will focus on getting more students, better students, and
different students. Different students, not just ethnically, but geographically. President Hall has asked for an
enrollment increase by 1200. There has been a dip in SAT scores due to a need to take in new freshman. A big
need is the gaps found in student retention. Four year, and up retention levels are going down. Over an
extended period of time, the numbers are going in the wrong direction. The committee will need to do a
number of things. Find the real issues of retention; create action plans, primarily around the first year
experience. W. Locust stated that the focus on retention should never go away. We need to continually
improve student’s success and experiences here. There are plans for a wide panel to constitute at lease two
senators. S. Mahan acknowledged that there is so much to say on the subject of retention. It needs to be
something on going, building on the work of the previous groups. The goal would be to make retention a part
of everyone’s conversations. The constitution of the committee does not have a set plan. After the first
meeting they should have a clear charge. They are looking for continuity and consistency of group members,
with a one year minimum. J. Pipkin was delighted to hear this committee will working on this important issue,
and everyone concurred. They felt that they should keep the groundwork they have from other similarly goaled
committees, it is important not to just start over.
A brief history of the current condition of our retention statistics followed. Including discussion of transitions
that have occurred that didn’t readily allow implementation of some of the developments. Prior to that many
developments where quickly implemented. Advisement was an area where the Provost’s office was able to
make some concrete changes. The committee became more focused on making recommendations than putting
them into action. Sensible recommendations may require senate action. It was believed that members of the
UAC where on the committee. And agreed that ULC should also be involved. W. Locust stated that the
number one recommendation to the committee would be to develop more targeted or tactical procedures. It
should be a small group that really works on the issues. S. Wood asked about a focus on engagement, and
recruitment. That it is a critical area that needs to come together. A recruitment plan, marketing strategies,
including scholarships. Would undergraduate advising have an evaluation process when implementing the
strategy? Look for feedback, or make practical input? Advising and registration is not working now. Everyone
seems to be struggling with course availability, and get hung up on class availability. The need for the AVN
number is often the student’s main focus, and not on advisement. The students want mentoring as well as
career advisement. It was agreed that conversations where needed with students, but using the numbers has
often broken down that process. Open majors has a lot of hoops and hurtles, and is in a bit of chaos right now.
But there is legislation coming to the next Senate meeting, that could feather in to the work of the retention
committee. Advisement and course availability often taints the whole process. Often we can not do good
advising with out the right forms. Open enrollment without declaring for a year makes a student not a part of a
group. Much of our competition in education is admitting directly into a department of choice. We are not
competing for better students with open enrollment. It was suggested that the students have contact information
with their area of study from day one. Someone to help them navigate the technical system. A. Lyons might be
interested. Advisors are often contradictory to what a student actually needs right now. Advisement Center is
coming up with a 4 year plan from every department, showing sequence and requirements. Start to show
students a path for a major. S. Wood stated that most of her complaints are from transfer students. There is a
need for some innovation here. S. Mahan will Chair the committee. There will be individuals who are involved
in the undergraduate program, and other crucial departments. D. Dewar thanked the guest for coming. They
left asking that these slots are filled as soon as possible.
D. Dewar asked A. Lyons if there was a need of the election committee. But A. Lyons felt that a larger pool
would generate more recommendations. The guests are asking for two names, linked to governance in general.
The logistics for the nominees, would be persons with a focus on retention, but also involved in advisement. A.
Israel stated it matters how you pick people, according to what the current issue is. Retention and advisement
are not the same at all. The Freshman experience has a big impact on retention. The Governance Council
would like some more information from the Advisement Committee. Can they make structure changes, are they
going to be focused on doing something. The major responsibility for the problems in this area, can be linked to
S. Mahan, and there was a question of whether she should be the chair of this committee. The discussion
continued about the practical issues of advisement. Often it seems like there is no choice. Many times student
will change there major. Linda Scoval was mentioned in possible advisement. There could be persons who
specialize in specific fields. The Council had a recommendation to take charge of the committee. And divide
into groups as needed to get things done. If the students get a sense that we care, they will stay longer.
Advisors should be people who have already served in the process, such as the Undergraduate Advisement
Office. This office is staffed by graduate students. They have most likely already been involved in the process.
A concern for the funding for the graduate students was discussed briefly. A request was stated, that it would
be helpful to have statistics for retention, including a division of transfer students, majors, and minors, to get a
sense of the size and variations.
The Governance Council would like to plan to populate the retention committee. They could propose names,
but need to understand what the issues are, to help recommend the senators. They would like to help balance
the committee. The council questioned what the current composition of the retention committee is. It was
proposed that the membership be represented by undergraduate studies? What is the advisement committee
composition? The council would like the retention committee to report back quarterly. They clearly want to
solve these problems, or at least hear the committee’s progress. They questioned how the retention committee
overlaps with the advisement task force.
Discussion continued with Friday classes, and 8am classes. The use of Friday afternoons for Faculty meetings
was discussed. Also, full day classes from 10 to 4pm where discussed. D. Dewar will ask S. Mehan the
questions, and tell them that the council feels strongly about the subject. When she gets the answers, D. Dewar
will check back with the Governance Committee.
Recommendations for future selection committees for the excellence awards:
S. Turner brought up the issue of the nomination for distinguished Librarian. They have an eligible nominee,
but don’t have a committee. There is currently a transition in who is handling it, since Meredith Butler has
retired. It was suggested they could check with W. Hedberg, to check the Chancellor Ryan. Possibly it could
roll into the Excellence Committee. It was agreed that S. Turner will check with M. Butler to see if she would
be willing to serve on the committee.
It seems efficient to have previous award recipients to serve on the new committee. The Governance Council
wants to make sure they are reviewing the committee for compliance, and assure that there are previous winners
on the committee.
Committee Reports:
Committee on Assessment of Governance and Consultation:
The committee is working on the School of Public Health representation issues. They have a handout, and will
make copies to distribute to the group. They would like verification on what is a voting faculty member, or
DOH faculty.
Committee on Liaison and Elections:
Nothing to report.
Adjournment: Next meeting is scheduled for December 12th which is Reading Day. The Terrace Lounge will
be in use. The Council will consider a Field Trip to CNSE for the meeting, 4-5:30.