Ithaca College
Faculty Council
September 3, 2013, 7-9 PM
VIP Room, A & E Center
Present:
C. Barboza, D. Birr, J. Bonnetta, K. Breuer, P. Constantinou, M. Cozzolino, D. Duke, J.
Freitag, S. Grigoriev, M. Hall, J. Harrington, A. Kissiloff, S. Lahr, R. Lesses, S. Mauk, C.
McNamara, B. Murday, T. Patrone, J. Pfrehm, D. Rifkin, P. Rothbart, J. Rosenthal, W.
Schlesinger, S. Seltzer, T. Swensen, D. Tindall, R. Wagner, J. Winslow
Excused: C. Henderson, J. Levy, D. Turkon
Guests: M. Kelly, B. Prunty, B. Roberts, Ithacan Reporter and Photographer
1. Welcome and Announcements:
P. Rothbart called the meeting to order. He reminded members to sign the attendance sheet;
and to notify him, or Diana Rumsey, in advance of meetings if they are unable to attend.
2.
Open Session:
None
3. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 2013:
P. Rothbart presented the minutes. A spelling correction was requested on page 5, item 12.
Motion to accept the minutes was made by D. Birr, seconded by C. McNamara. Minutes
were accepted, with the correction as noted; 2 Abstentions.
4. Chair’s Report:
 The Executive Committee did meet with the Provost over the summer; information
updates were disseminated primarily via the All College meetings.
 A call for members to create a Shared Governance Research Task Force did go out in
May. P. Rothbart expressed that he had hoped to have enough members to begin work
over the summer. There are solid candidates, but not enough individuals stepped
forward. Another call for members has gone out; and additional names have been
received. The information will be sent to the Executive Committee. P. Rothbart
reviewed the intent of this task force, which will be charged to assess several possible
governance structures, and provide the pros and cons for each of the structures. After
the task force completed its work, a campus-wide discussion will begin. The original
motion made at May’s Faculty Council meeting allows for flexibility in the January 1
deadline.
 Two at-large representatives for APC are needed. These are full APC members; each
will serve on a subcommittee (policy and curriculum). P. Rothbart will be soliciting
names and send information to Council members for a vote via email to assure timely
participation.
o Faculty Council also needs a representative for APC. J. Pena-Shaff served last
year; however, she is no longer on Faculty Council. P. Rothbart spoke with the
Chair of APC, and it was suggested that J. Pena-Shaff stay on until Faculty
Council has a chance to replace her. P. Rothbart okayed this for one month.
 A point person is needed from each of the five schools to facilitate information.
Currently, Music and H&S have someone; and P. Rothbart asked that each of the other
schools caucus among themselves and identify a point person and set a one-week
deadline.
1












Newest members were introduced: Stan Seltzer, Tatiana Patrone, and P. Constantinou
who is replacing S. Howard-Baptiste for a one-year period.
Three Town Hall meetings have been scheduled for:
o September 10, 2013, 12:10-1 pm
o October 31, 2013, 12:10-1 pm
o February 13, 2014, 12:10-1 pm
All meetings will take place in Textor 102.
T. Swensen will be keeping track of the motions and amendments that occur during
Faculty Council meetings to reflect an accurate record.
A few requests have been received regarding talking to the health center about
absentee policy whereby excused absences can be checked. P. Rothbart has not
investigated this yet, but will make contact to see if there is a way to create a better flow
of attendance.
A discussion will be pursued with HR on adjustment to adjunct pay schedules; P.
Rothbart will report next month.
Prior to delivering the All College Meeting speech, President Rochon assembled
members of the Faculty Council Executive Committee, along with others, to review his
presentation. This provided clarity and an opportunity for feedback, and improved the
communications process.
A retreat with the Board of Trustees is upcoming. M. Kelly will have more information on
this in her report.
Interaction with the Admissions Office is being explored. In light of the decision to not
apply SATs, P. Rothbart wondered how much input faculty had regarding this decision.
He will pursue a conversation with E. McGuire and will encourage more interaction with
the Admissions.
An invitation to Michael Buck, new trustee, to request he attend future Faculty Council
meetings when possible will be sent. This will provide him the opportunity to get a sense
of discussions taking place at council meetings.
The Provost has been invited to attend Faculty Council meetings. Additionally, the
Executive Committee will also be meeting with the Provost on occasion to assure shared
communications.
President Rochon has signed the LEAP proposal.
P. Rothbart reviewed information circulated with the agenda: policy manual information
on governance, the organizational chart for the Office of the Provost & Vice President for
Educational Affairs, and Robert’s Rules information sheet.
5. Provost’s Report:
 M. Kelly announced an upcoming Board of Trustees/Faculty Retreat on October 24. The
board will be setting aside some of its regular meeting to engage with faculty on a
number of different topics; and will be an opportunity for conversation between faculty
and board members. A brief overview of the day’s activities was given; and invitations
are forthcoming to Faculty Council members and all department chairs. This activity is
designed so that faculty can participate around their teaching schedules.
 M. Kelly also provided an update on the Advising Center’s recent activity. Between
August 26-30, the center had 171 appointments with students; 67 of these appointments
were scheduled and were representative of students from all five schools. Students
were looking for a range of help – everything from changing a major to scheduling
questions to long-term plans and questions about the ICC. Advisors are also teaching
the transfer seminars, and they Advising Center will be launching a survey for new
students in week three in hopes of learning about what is working for students, and what
2

is not working. There are a couple of questions specifically designed to target students
at-risk in a variety of ways –- those who are at-risk not staying the course for the
semester, or who are at-risk academically. Students who respond in a certain way to
those questions will be contacted by the Advising Center with the goal of meeting with
each student with the hopes of engaging them and helping them turn things around.
It was recommended to Provost Kelly that faculty feedback about how this new effort is
working be pursued, including learning from orientation advisors (faculty) any ideas
about better ways to utilize the assigned advisor. There was an inquiry about the status
of an advisory council to the Advising Center. M. Kelly affirmed that S. Neil is still
planning to move forward, and was delayed by the fact that summer had arrived and
individuals were not available. P. Rothbart stated that he would follow up with S. Neal
and report back; and he will invite S. Neal to Faculty Council’s October meeting –
subject to approval by the Executive Committee.
6. Budget Discussion:
Executive Committee discussed the budget because typically the constituency is asked
for a list of priorities that, as faculty, they would like to recommend be put into the
budget. The Executive Committee somewhat felt that the budget has been laid out for
the next couple of years, so this was not pursued. The option of creating and submitting
a list is still available.
J. Rosenthal motioned: Faculty Council endorses the concept behind the
President’s Under Three/Over Three Principle. We understand this to mean that
the College should strive to have tuition increases that are at most modestly
above the rate of inflation, and that salary increases should be a little more
above the rate of inflation. So for example, if inflation is the 2% targeted by the
“Fed,” then tuition increases would be below 3% and salary increase would be
above 3%.
J. Harrington seconded the motion. The motion was passed by unanimous vote.
7. Elections:
 According to policy, Faculty Council needs to elect one representative to serve on the
APC as well as the APC Policy Committee. This person has full voting rights, acts as a
liaison, and serves on the Faculty Council Executive Committee.
S. Grigoriev was unanimously elected.

Bylaws state that a Parliamentarian is required.
J. Pfrehm was unanimously elected.
P. Rothbart reminded members a call will be going out for at-large members to serve on the
APC Policy and the APC Curriculum committees, respectively.
8. First Year Reading Initiative Proposed Change to Short Events Related to Themes and
Perspectives:
M. Kelly and B. Prunty presented the current state and thought on changing the format of the
First Year Reading Initiative (FYRI) Specifically, there is a proposal to redesign the FYRI based
on B. Prunty’s efforts to survey the five schools concerning the lower than desired student
participation in the activities. The proposal suggests potentially shifting from one book that all
incoming students would read and be expected to attend the kickoff event, to a series of six
kick-off events—a different event for each of the six themes. This change may, or may not,
utilize a book – it could be something else. The hope is that faculty participation in the redesign
3
could connect the kick-off event to the learning objectives for the first year experience, which is
tied to the themes and perspectives of the ICC; and the hopeful result would be increased
participation. While the FYRI is not a requirement, it is communicated to students that there is
an expectation they will participate. M. Kelly expressed the desire to obtain feedback from
faculty across campus to see if there is support for this change so she asked B. Prunty to visit
all the schools and get their thoughts.
B. Prunty reported that feedback was similar across the board in the five schools. A
disappointment in the level of preparedness on the part of the students who participated, as well
as the number of students who elect not to participate exists. If there is a move to something
that was directly linked to the six themes, where students had the opportunity to select their
theme, perhaps students would be more engaged in whatever reading/activity is determined. It
is difficult to find a book in which so many people would have an equal interest. There is a
belief that it is beneficial to students to engage in the common experience, and it would be a
loss, but the reality is that the current goal in not being achieved. In 2009, when we had the
largest incoming class, just a little over 1,000 students participated; representative of about 50%
of the class. Concerns about the expense of purchasing books that students are not actually
reading was also mentioned. There is support for the idea of moving to six events linked more
closely with the themes for students. While a minority opinion, there are concerns that perhaps
students are just over programmed at the beginning of the academic year—perhaps there is just
too much going on for them.
Faculty Council members discussed their experiences with FYRI, expressing opinions on the
pros and cons of the current effort, asked questions, offered options for changing the format,
and discussed the suggested revised model.
The question was raised whether or not Council should vote at this time. M. Kelly clarified that
while changing this initiative is President Rochon’s decision, she was hopeful of getting a nonbinding sense of the faculty as to whether or not they liked the proposal put forth, as it would be
helpful in moving forward.
Non-binding straw vote: Faculty Council supports moving the First Year Reading
Initiative towards a theme-based event. All in favor - 13 votes; Opposed - 5 votes; and
Abstentions - 9 votes.
9. Homer Workflow Group Request for Focus Group Type Feedback:
Bryan Roberts and Marisa Kelly presented on the Homer Workflow group’s progress towards
making changes to the delivery system of commonly used online forms. Electronic Content
Management (ECM) is an effort to automate processes on campus that will facilitate and
expedite activities for everyone involved. Currently, there is a list of about 35 forms which the
Provost’s Office has requested be reviewed. B. Roberts provided an example of how things
vary from school to school: the course override form has a different process in each of the 5
schools, with 6 different forms. Frustration among faculty and students about forms and the
process of review and acquiring signatures was evident.
B. Roberts demonstrated an example of how an online form works. The form automatically
pulls information from Homer, which eliminates the multiple times certain information has to be
entered during a manual printed form process; and a reviewer has the ability to see the
restrictions. Feedback has been good during the beta testing.
4
Faculty Council members provided comments, asked questions, and shared feedback. There
was mention of concerns about the security of Homer and current issues such as process
changes where sometimes there is a difference of opinion on whether or not something is a
process change or simple a document change. It was emphasized to Faculty Council that any
process changes would be brought to faculty for input. B. Roberts requested that he be able to
return to Faculty Council for the purposes of updating them at least once during the academic
year.
10. New Business:
None
Meeting adjourned: 8:58 PM
5