ITHACA COLLEGE
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 14, 2000
Present: Jim Aguiar, Mara Alper, Luanne Andersson, Jules Benjamin, Diana Birr,
Randie Blooding, Byron Caplan, Harold Emery, Don Lifton, Marian MacCurdy,
Sabatino Maglione, Winnie Mauser, Steve Peterson, Fred Pritt, Rick Rainville, John
Rosenthal, Ari Kissiloff, Stan Seltzer, Jennifer Strickland, Robert Sullivan
Excused: Joseph Cheng, Carole Dennis, Kinsuk Maitra
Absent: Lee Bailey, Michael Galván
Guests: Garry Brodhead, Allison Lieberman '01, Frank Musgrave, Nancy Pringle,
Carol Byerly, Andy Ezergailis
1. Welcome and Announcements
Stan Seltzer, Chair, opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. He asked that those making
reports henceforth do so from the front of the room, rather than from their seats. Other
announcements:
Rory Rothman has expressed strong appreciation for faculty participation in the
October 12 community conversation on bias-related incidents, specifically mentioning
the moderator, Bob Sullivan, Asma Barlas, Jeff Claus, and first-year seminar faculty
who turned out students in large numbers.
Renee Brown was elected to APC.
Candidates for the Affirmative Action Officer position will be on campus on
Wednesday and Thursday afternoon. Anyone is invited to attend the interview
sessions. Those who will have contact with this position are especially encouraged to
make some time to get acquainted with the candidates.
At Tri-Council it was announced that Staff Council has a committee called TRAC
(Transportation Alternative Concepts). They would welcome one or two faculty
members as liaisons. A campus-wide call will be put out for volunteers.
Upcoming on the December agenda will be a report from the Alcohol Policies Task
Force, which would like to have a conversation with Faculty Council. The Chair has
asked them to provide something in writing beforehand so that Council members will
be prepared.. The Ad hoc Grade Policy Study Committee will also be making a report
in December.
2. Approval of the Minutes of October 3, 2000
D. Birr moved to approve the minutes; M. MacCurdy seconded the motion. The Chair
relayed a request from John Stanton to revise his comments on advising, page 1, last
paragraph, third sentence beginning "He noted that students... ." It should be replaced
with "He noted that access to the system will not require an advisor's signature." The
minutes were approved as amended.
3. Provost's Report
G. Brodhead reported in the absence of Provost Malek.
A. Ithaca College Institutional Plan He distributed copies of the final
recommendations from the Planning and Priorities Committee, culminating the work
of two years. He called attention to the final two-page attachment, Most Urgent Goals,
Ranked in Terms of Points. The document will be shortly available internally on the
Web. Paper copies have been distributed to the Budget committee, the Deans and
Chairs.
B. Using the Institutional Plan With the goals prioritized, the process will move
down to the school and program level. It may be helpful for departments which will
soon be asked to provide an assessment mechanism to provide the information that
will be needed for Ithaca Colleges report to Middle States.
C. New Memberships on College Committees Steve Mauk has been appointed to
the College Budget Committee as the faculty representative from the Planning and
Priorities Committee, replacing Ellen Bonaguro. (Ellen, who is currently Interim
Assistant Dean in H&S, will continue to serve on the Budget Committee as a staff
representative from the P&P Committee. Also, Tom Salm will be heading up a new
advisory committee on facilities planning. Nancy Brcak was appointed by the
President after consultation with the Executive Committee; and Marian MacCurdy
will be serve as a representative from the Planning and Priorities Committee.
D. New College Policy on Plagiarism in Collaborative Projects Apology was made
for not bringing the new policy to the attention of Faculty Council before distribution.
After the policy cleared the APC, concern for getting the information to faculty in a
timely fashion so that they could put the policy in their syllabi was the stated reason
for this omission. R. Rainville, Council's rep to APC, said that in the future he would
report on such things during the Announcements section of the agenda. to improve
communication.
4. Budget Committee Report
Election of Faculty Council Representative to Budget Committee. S. Seltzer
reminded the group that late last November he was elected by Council to serve on the
Budget Committee. The committee has begun to meet this year and he attended
sessions on November 2 and November 6, making it clear he was serving in the
interim. It is Council's prerogative to name a faculty member to the committee and he
inquired whether anyone was interested in this position, indicating a willingness to
continue to serve if no one else wished to do so.
Mara Alper moved (seconded by S. Maglione) to elect Stan Seltzer to serve as Faculty
Council's representative to the Budget Committee for 2000-2001. The motion passed
unanimously.
Budget Committee Representatives Report. S. Seltzer said the committee has a
very ambitious schedule, with two three-hour meetings each week, Monday mornings
and Thursday afternoons. Larry Metzger has made a report on enrollment, and Jim
Malek has spoken about the planning process, distributing the Ithaca College
Institutional Plan (which was dispensed to Faculty Council by G. Brodhead during the
Provost's Report). There is a genuine commitment around the table to try to be faithful
to the Planning and Priorities report in principle, having the budget reflect the
identified and ranked priorities, but no clear idea of how to make that happen. Marty
Turnbull has made a report on compensation issues.
J. Rosenthal expressed dissatisfaction with the late distribution of the priorities list in
light of the December 1 and 13 deadlines for submission of requests. D. Lifton stated
that the Faculty Council representative should advocate aggressively for improved
faculty salaries. He indicated that Ithaca College faculty compensation is below the
median of that of the Provost Ten, the benchmark group of other institutions that the
Provost has created as having similar characteristics to this college. He feels that
Ithaca College faculty should be in the top 10 percent, and certainly not below the top
25 per cent, in the area of compensation. The Chair made a note to hold a discussion
on this at a future meeting. He asked people with genuine concerns to contact him.
5. Accommodation Policy for Students with Disabilities
Nancy Pringle was asked to answer any questions about the revised draft of the
Accommodation Policy distributed with the November 14, 2000, agenda, with the
goal of voting approval at this meeting.
B. Sullivan inquired about the feasibility of requiring a six-week lead time to present
documentation. N. Pringle said that individuals would probably always have to be
dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but that the intent was to make students more
accountable and responsible for their side of things. If documentation is not in place
six weeks ahead of the start of classes, students will not be guaranteed to have an
accommodation in place on Day 1. If this policy is adhered to, it will greatly reduce
the difficulties currently being encountered in Leslie Schettinos office.
J. Rosenthal expressed confusion with the provisions in Section A.
IDENTIFICATION ("Third, faculty may refer students whom they suspect have a
disability to the Director ...") and in Section C. DOCUMENTATION ("It is the
responsibility of the student requesting academic adjustments/auxiliary aids and
services to provide documentation including, but not limited to ... [d]ocumentation
specifying recommended academic adjustments/auxiliary aids and services.") N.
Pringle said that faculty perceiving a need may call the student to the attention of the
Director who will, in turn, contact the student to advise him/her of the observation,
and inquire whether the student wishes to submit documentation that might support
the fact that he/she has a disability. If the student elects not to do so, that is the
student's choice and the institution has no further responsibility. It is always the
student's responsibility to provide the documentation.
F. Pritt noted that often students do not request an accommodation until after the first
major project assignment, so he has concern about the six-week stipulation; that is,
although they have tried not to make special requests, some students will want
accommodation when they suddenly run into a wall in the course. N. Pringle stated
the policy is not that accommodation cannot be implemented in fewer than six weeks;
it simply permits the College up to six weeks to meet its responsibility to the student.
The sooner the student provides documentation, the sooner the disability can be
accommodated. Documentation is key.
D. Lifton reported a colleague's concerns about the possible unfairness of extended
time for in-class exams, the third listed academic adjustment under B. ACADEMIC
ADJUSTMENTS/ AUXILIARY AIDS ANDSERVICE/ADACEMIC
ACCOMMODATION POLIDY FOR STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES. N. Pringle
said that the Director and the faculty member will attempt to come to an agreement on
the appropriateness of the request. If they fail to agree, the Affirmative Action Office
will become involved in the determination of reasonable accommodation.
Under the same Section B, W. Mauser inquired about the status of all six listed typical
academic adjustments/auxiliary aids and services. Special concern was raised about
the fourth adjustment example: substitution of specific courses required for degree
completion. J. Rosenthal stated that his understanding of the ADA Act distinguishes
between some requirements that are essential to what a particular degree means and
some that are not. Some courses that are essential for one student's field of study are
not necessary for another student.
J. Rosenthal expressed concern that upper middle class students have a greater
financial opportunity to secure professional documentation of problems than students
from a much lower economic group.
M. MacCurdy inquired about the reason for the three-year limit for documentation.
Those coming from a public school may have free documentation, while those who do
not may have to spend a good deal of money. Those who have high school
documentation but do not use it upon enrollment may later find a need for
accommodation and their documentation is no longer valid, resulting in heavy
expense getting someone to tell them what they already know about themselves. N.
Pringle indicated she did not know the reason for the three-year limit for
documentation and would seek clarification from the original drafters of the
document.
J. Rosenthal moved and F. Pritt seconded:
MOTION: To endorse the draft as presented.
It was moved and seconded to amend the draft by striking from Page 1, Section III B,
item No. 4, substitution of specific courses required for degree completion.
The amendment was approved.
MOTION (AMENDED): To endorse the draft as amended by striking from Page
1, Section III B, item No. 4 ("substitution of specific courses required for degree
completion").
It was moved and seconded to further amend the draft by striking from Page 2,
Section III C 1, first sentence, not more than three years old.
This amendment was defeated.
The motion, as amended, was approved.
6. Old Business
A. Proposed Faculty Handbook Amendments
S. Seltzer commented that the faculty has had copies of the proposed amendments
since last spring, and that the Faculty Handbook Amendment Committee had worked
on the proposal for two years. He noted that to reject any proposal is to live with the
status quo, and he encouraged the group to consider endorsing improvement, with any
desired amendment, even if it is not perfection.
Frank Musgrave expressed concern that the committee did not use AAUP standards as
a reference. He condemns the continuing patch-up job resulting f rom lack of going to
the common source.
Andy Ezergailis urged that Council mandate the Faculty Handbook Amendment
Committee to become acquainted with the AAUP Redbook, which contains all of the
AAUP guidelines.
D. Lifton urged the importance of giving serious consideration to the results of the
two years of work done by the committee.
J. Rosenthal suggested getting to a focus on the big concerns with the document by
beginning to review and approve the sections that are not controversial. A series of
motions followed.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.0, lines 1-12. (J.
Rosenthal moved, F. Pritt seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.0, lines 17-24. (J.
Rosenthal moved, Diane Birr seconded.)
J. Rosenthal raised a concern about dual appointment to different academic units. The
document indicates that there will be a primary academic unit, but does not make the
role of the second academic unit clear. He withdrew the original motion.
MOTION: To refer this paragraph (Section 4.0, lines 17-24) back to the
committee to clarify the role of the second department in terms of evaluation,
promotion and separation. (J. Rosenthal moved, W. Mauser seconded.)
The motion to refer back to the committee was approved.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.1 through Section
4.1.4 (page 2, lines 1-36). (J. Rosenthal moved, W. Mauser seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.1.7 , lines 28 - 29. (J.
Rosenthal moved, R. Blooding seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.2. (J. Rosenthal
moved, R. Blooding seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.3.1. (J. Rosenthal
moved, R. Blooding seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.3.2. (J. Rosenthal
moved, R. Blooding seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To approve all changes where the document refers to "Volume IV of
this Policy Manual" (instead of "Faculty Handbook") and to change any
remaining instances of "Faculty Handbook" to "Volume IV of this Policy
Manual." (J. Rosenthal moved, D. Birr seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To refer the document back to the Handbook Amendment Committee
to make recommendations on every reference to other Volumes of the Policy
Manual, indicating whether or not they believe there is anything substantive
there that would concern us with those documents being changeable without
faculty approval necessary. (J. Rosenthal moved, D. Birr seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.3.5, lines 27 and
28. (J. Rosenthal moved, R. Blooding seconded.)
The motion was approved.
MOTION: J. To remove the recommended language in Section 4.4 R. Blooding
seconded the motion. (J. Rosenthal moved, R. Blooding seconded.)
W. Mauser moved to amend the motion to accept the recommended language of
Section 4.4 after removal of the word "legitimate" from line 8. After further
discussion W. Mauser withdrew her first motion to amend and moved to accept the
language of Section 4.4 after removal of the entire second sentence: "The College
does, however have certain legitimate expectations concerning the conduct of
professional academics." Mara Alper seconded the amendment.
The amendment was approved.
MOTION (AMENDED): To adopt the recommended language in Section 4.4
removing the second sentence: "The College does, however have certain
legitimate expectations concerning the conduct of professional academics."
The motion, as amended, was approved.
J. Rosenthal stated that he has great concerns about Section 4.4.3, on the basis that
despite the fact that while it attempts to strike some sort of balance between issues of
academic freedom and issues of professional incompetence, misconduct or
irresponsibility, an indication of who decides what that balance is is missing from this
paragraph. The AAUP would strongly assert that that decision needs to be made by
one's colleagues.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.