GOVERNANCE COUNCIL
2005-06 Chair: Diane Dewar
February 15, 2006
Minutes
Members Present:
E. Bell, S. Birge, R. Collier, E. Cupoli, D. Dewar, H. Horton, A. Israel,
A., Lyons, J. Pipkin, M. Range, H. Strother
Guests:
R. Fortune, Professor, School of Social Welfare
B. Rio, Director, Undergraduate Field Education Program, School of
Social Welfare
Minutes:
The minutes of December 2, 2005 were approved.
Discussion on the Standards and Procedures for Social Work Education
Professor Fortune explained that the Proposal has been tabled twice by the University Senate. It
was referred back to the Governance Council and the Graduate Academic Council for further
review. After meeting with the Graduate Academic Council, several revisions were made.
Revisions Discussed by GAC:

There was considerable concern among GAC members about the make-up of the
Committee on Standards for Social Work Education. Professor Fortune noted that a
change in response to GAC will be made; either the number for a quorum will be
increased, or more faculty will be appointed.

Regarding Student Appeals: GAC does not agree that an appeal should be going on
during the process of the entire procedure.
A Council Member asked Professor Fortune if this process is used in any other area of the
University. Professor Fortune responded that she believed this is new to the University. But,
the content of the Standards is fairly uniform among schools of social work. R. Collier added
that these standards did once exist in the no longer available Student Teaching Program at the
University.
Discussion on the Composition of the Quorum
Chair Dewar suggested changing the composition of the quorum by adding tenured faculty; and
asked Council Members for other suggestions.
R. Collier reported that the UAC did not look into the issue of tenured faculty.
There was discussion on the number of tenured vs. non-tenured faculty that should be involved.
Professor Fortune explained that the intent on including non-tenured voting faculty was to allow
other full time professionals on Campus the opportunity to be involved; and the Committee was
set-up with the thought that if three members would be a quorum, they could make sure at least
two were tenure track, to be sure faculty were involved. It was intended to include several
different titles that fall within the “Voting Faculty” category.
Professor Israel had concern with voting rights for faculty who are on the “Voting Faculty” list
that are part-time, or who are employed by other agencies and may not know the standards.
Professor Fortune explained that the University has a contract with that agency that states the
faculty are obligated to “our” students and should know the standards. He argued it should be
voting members of the faculty only.
Discussion centered on whether or not many tenure track faculty actually do know the standards
and if excluding professional staff or non-University employees may or may not benefit the
student. It was argued that possibly, a broad-based group of people looking at their case may
benefit the student. There was concern that because some people have been in academia for a
long time, and not “out there” in the professional world, a professional staff person may be a
benefit. Professor Range suggested including professionals for their expertise, but not to vote.
When asked, Professor Fortune noted that membership term limits will be for two years, they
will be staggered. The Committee will make a recommendation to the dean, and the dean is not
involved until them, so a representative of the dean should be ex officio. She is willing to agree
that all members should be voting faculty.
Professor Lyons suggested the Council should be very specific and define what “voting” faculty
means. Professor Range suggested SSW should define what the term “voting faculty” means in
their bylaws.
Chair Dewar recapped: “Everyone is comfortable that the members should be voting faculty and
a clause about data gathering should be added.”

R. Collier suggested that three members should be tenure track.

Professor Range suggested including the clause: “at least the majority should be tenured,
not just tenure track.”

Professor Lyons questioned if asking for a majority to be tenured could cause problems
within the department being able to staff the committee. It could cause demographic
problems.

Professor Fortune said she would like to keep it “three need to be tenure track.”
Discussion followed on the appeal on substance and process. Professor Fortune was not clear
about the last page and asked if it is acceptable to the group to have an appeal on substance to the
2
GAC but not an appeal on substance on UAC. B. Rio noted that GAC will look at the substance
and due process.
Senate Handbooks
Chair Dewar reminded the Council Members that the handbooks such as “How to be a Senator”
and need to be completed. R Collier has volunteered to work on the subcommittee; and Chair
Dewar asked if someone would volunteer to co-chair that committee. No one at the meeting
volunteered. Chair Dewar will assist in co-chairing that subcommittee on these tasks.
Update on the Retention Committee
Chair Dewar announced that she attended one of the recent meetings of the newly formed
University Student Retention Committee. The framework of the meeting was information
gathering, fact finding, who the retentions are, yield rates, etc. She discussed the content of the
meeting, in terms of the student satisfaction survey. She wanted to highlight that there was a
resounding response to the Project Renaissance program. It was apparent among most of those
present that student retention was good for that program.
She noted that R. Collier was appointed to the committee from the Governance Council and Rabi
Musah and Helmut Hirsh were also appointed. After some discussion, it was noted by Council
members, that Administrative representatives dominate the Committee and that was questioned.
The concern was that there is not enough faculty representation on the Committee and that there
may be policies made by this Committee that will be difficult to implement at the department
level with its present staffing.
Chair Dewar noted that there were many names submitted and the Committee went through
many names before making its decision. She also noted that Vice Provost Locust will take more
names and suggestions. She explained that many of the people who were recommended for the
committee declined, because they have too much else going on, or they may have served on such
a committee before, etc.
After discussing the make-up of the committee further, Chair Dewar asked Council members to
forward more names to her and she will pass the names on to VP Locust.
Professor Pipkin suggested that a much better way would have been to reach out to others who
have been on this Committee before, the Committee worked for two years on retention issues.
Chair Dewar asked him to forward her names of the people that were on that Committee.
Miscellaneous Issues
1) Mission review: R. Collier spoke about SUNY and the University in the High Schools
Program. He mentioned that in GEAR, Gen Ed assessment, there is an issue/conflict that
there is no assessment being done in the University in the High Schools Program. He
argued that there is quality control, whether it meets the national standards that CW Post
in Syracuse comparable programs do or not.
3
2) LISC: Someone brought questions to R. Collier about the two committees in LISC. One
concern is that one of the committees’ make-up is not conforming to the Charter. The
makeup is acting as advisory to the Director of the Libraries and to the CIO, which is not
appropriate. Professor Range brought up that last Spring the Senate approved and
established a Mediation Committee, it is supposed to work to have people represent
different sides at meetings.
Chair Dewar thanked him for that information. She said that is something to keep in
mind, to work in that forum.
3) Professor Lyons announced that the time is approaching to produce ballots for the Senate
for next year. There are several Senators-at-Large positions that need to be replaced,
along with the Chair–Elect and the Secretary positions. Professor Lyons explained that
when the Nominations Committee produced the UAS ballot last year, it received several
emails that the list was too long, and suggesting that the committee should be more
judicious in the number of people placed on the ballots. The committee decided that in
order to remain “open” – it would be best to keep everyone on the list. Professor Lyons
suggested that people begin thinking of people who would be good in the position of
Chair-elect and Secretary. Professor Lyons reminded the group that it might get a little
unwieldy because some schools or colleges may have more than two senators. Each
senator should have representation from a different department. She gave a couple
examples, one being, CAS with having no specific departmental representation. She
thinks the Governance Council will have to continue to try to find ways to solve the
governance structure within the schools.
Respectfully submitted,
Jayne VanDenburgh
4