ITHACA COLLEGE
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 2, 2002
Present: Jim Aguiar, Charis Dimaras, Harold Emery, Marie Garland, Cathe Gordon,
Ron Jude, Ari Kissiloff, Don Lifton, Marian MacCurdy, Winnie Mauser, Tim Nord,
Steve Peterson, Mary Ann Rishel, Stan Seltzer, Bruce Smith, Jennifer Strickland,
Robert Sullivan, John Wolohan
Excused: Diane Birr, Joseph Cheng, Carole Dennis, John Rosenthal
Absent: Lee Bailey, Sabatino Maglione
Guests: Jen Blanco '03, Garry Brodhead, Steve Mauk, Jenna Perkins '03, Arno Selco,
Anne Walters '05
1. Welcome and Announcements
Stan Seltzer, Chair, opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. He reminded the group of the
upcoming faculty meetings with President Williams on Tuesday, April 16, 12:10 p.m.
in Textor 103, and Wednesday, April 17, 3:30-5:00 p.m. in Williams 225.
He reported that about 30 faculty members attended the general faculty meeting
scheduled by Faculty Council on March 19. There was discussion on three primary
items — the Boyer model, grading policies, and fall semester grade submission
deadlines — and feedback was useful.
Peter Bardaglio will be on campus at the end of the week. There will be an open
meeting for faculty at the noon hour on Thursday, April 4, in Textor Hall, and a
reception on Friday in the Klingenstein Lounge. Faculty Council is a co-host of the
reception and all faculty are encouraged to attend.
Elections for available seats on next year's Faculty Council are under way. New
members will attend the May meeting and will participate in election of officers for
2002-2003. He noted that the Chair receives three credits of reassigned time each
semester, and the Secretary is granted three credits of reassigned time over the course
of the year.
G. Brodhead reported that he and President Williams and Tanya Saunderswill be
working together to take care of day-to-day operations while Bill Scoones is on
medical leave.
On behalf of Council, the Chair has agreed to continue to sponsor a book drive to
benefit the Family Reading Partnership for the Spring Celebration of Service. He
asked that people willing to volunteer to help out contact him.
2. Faculty Institutional Advancement Committee Report
Arno Selco made a presentation on the Faculty Institutional Advancement Committee
Report. (Attachment 02-04-A to April Agenda). A. Kisiloff inquired whether there
would be any special funding available for the types of activities suggested. Arno
thought there might be some limited funds. Ari commented that with limited funds,
limited things can be done; alumni who are on their first job and might like to come
may not be able to afford to visit. Arno said that Graham Stewart has money to bring
alums on campus to appear in classrooms and, indeed, has e-mailed faculty to propose
candidates for these kinds of visits.
Arno noted that there are two suggestions from the committee that have already been
acted upon. One is that money earmarked by donors for a specific program can now
be passed along on top of the regular operating budget. There is also the beginning of
an organization of retired faculty members.
He also noted that donor contributions to the Annual Fund are up 25 per cent for this
year, whereas annual contributions to annual funds nationally are down 10 per cent.
A. Kissilof especially commended the recommendation that alumni and retirees be
allowed to retain their e-mail addresses for life as a means of facilitating
communication.
D. Lifton said he did not expect large numbers of faculty members wanting to
participate, but Arno stated that there was interest above the sixteen faculty members
selected for the committee. The perception is that there has been a change of attitude
on the part of faculty toward becoming involved in these sorts of activities; it was
surprising to learn how many projects there are in different departments involving
faculty identifying and attracting off-campus funding.
J. Aguiar felt that faculty might be encouraged to attend more events if they were
offered not one, but two complimentary tickets, so that they could bring along a child,
a friend, or a significant other when giving further time to the service of the College,
C. Gordon complimented the committee on the report. D. Lifton inquired whether the
report was documented as policy. Arno said that it is his understanding that this is the
current policy, and he will look into having it conveyed to the entire faculty.
3. Approval of Minutes of the February 5, 2002, and March 5, 2002, Meetings
W. Mauser moved to approve the February minutes; H. Emery seconded. The minutes
of the February 5, 2002, meeting were approved as submitted.
W. Mauser moved to approve the March minutes; H. Emery seconded. Just before
Item 7, Provost's Report, D. Lifton asked that the minutes reflect that a motion was
made and approved to distribute the budget report to the faculty via the Faculty
Committee Newsletter. With this addition to the minutes, the minutes of March 5,
2002, were approved.
4. Budget Report
Before taking comments from the floor regarding the approved budget for 2002-2003,
D. Lifton noted that in his March 5 memorandum to Faculty Council titled "The IC
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year '02 -'03" which was attached to the March 5 agenda,
he had mistakenly stated that Marina Todd was a staff representative to the
Committee. The attachment should be corrected to indicate that she is a member
representing the Planning and Priorities Committee. Hoping that Faculty Council
would agree with her in an informal way, she indicated that she thought it would be a
good idea to have a staff representative serving on the Budget Committee.
5. Provost's Report
A. G. Brodhead reported that membership of the task force, approved by Council in
March, to discuss and make recommendations on the fall grade submission deadline
and related issues last month is nearly complete.
B. Sessions to discuss Interdisciplinary Studies are under way. The group expects to
have a report by the end of the semester.
6. Faculty Handbook Section 4.12.7.3 Scholarly Research and Creative Work
S. Seltzer invited discussion of the Boyer model which he believes widens the bar;
maybe raises it a little bit, but does not lower it in any way; and does not stipulate that
there is only one valid form of scholarly activity. C. Gordon feels that it is appropriate
for a number of programs within the institution. M.A. Rishel also spoke in support.
She is particularly pleased with the model because it is not excluding anyone; faculty
who want to do traditional research have a place in this model. It expands the
definition and allows faculty flexibility. It allows different career paths and different
ways of developing one's interests during tenure at Ithaca College. Since the evidence
of scholarship must be reviewed thoroughly by peers, it will require a rigorous review
for any candidates submitting themselves as "Boyer Scholars."
G. Brodhead commented that the Boyer model gains more and more support every
year throughout the country, and it is an appropriate model for Ithaca College.
Institutions that have been more traditional are being forced to consider some of these
things, because the movement is that way. It is not faddish. He has done some
research and finds that all four types of scholarship are being done in all five schools.
Having it codified will not mean we have to operate differently.
MOTION: Faculty Council recommends approval of Section 4.12.7.3 Scholarly
Research and Creative Work (pp.29-32).
The motion was approved.
7. Professional Leaves for CNTE Faculty
The Chair distributed a proposal titled "Professional Leave of Absence for CNTE"
dated 3/27/02. After discussion of wording (CNTE having been replaced by new
terminology in the proposed faculty handbook) and understanding (the leave is to be
paid, as a sabbatical), a motion was made by C. Gordon, seconded by H. Emery.
MOTION: To approve the proposal in principle and forward it to the Faculty
Handbook Amendment Committee and to the administration with comments
reflecting the discussion.
The motion was approved.
8. Old Business
J. Aguiar inquired about the Trustee's decision regarding the Benefit Committee's
TIAA-CREF Proposal. D. Lifton reported that it was not approved for this next year,
but it will be revisited. He noted that as it is considered it is competing for a limited
pool of funds with many other worthy proposals. S. Seltzer said the Benefits
Committee received a formal response to the proposal from the Budget Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.