Ithaca College
Faculty Council
January 22, 2013
Emerson A
Present:
D. Birr, L. Black, J. Blumberg, J. Bonnetta, B. Bower, K. Breuer, W. Dann, D. Duke,
S. Freedman, S. Grigoriev, M. Hall, J. Harrington, S. Howard-Baptiste, A. Kissiloff, S.
Lahr, J. Lapp, A. Monticello, B. Murday, S. Osterreich, T. Patrone, J. Pena-Shaff, J.
Pfrehm, P. Rothbart, W. Schlesinger, S. Stansfield, T. Swensen, D. Turkon,
B. Whitehead
Absent:
J. Stafford
Excused: J. Blumberg, C. Henderson, C. McNamara, R. Lesses
Guests:
K. O’Connor (The Ithacan), Carol Henderson (Provost’s Office) Staff Council
Members: K. Reeter and J.White.
1. Welcome and Announcements:
P. Rothbart called the meeting to order at 6:15 pm and reminded everyone that there was
another Council meeting in two weeks. Announcements included:
 Provost Kelly unable to attend the meeting, due to the fact that she was out of town.
She asked Peter to convey that there were no major updates at this time.
 Sabbatical replacements on Faculty Council for this semester include: James Pfrehm
and Rebecca Lesses from H&S, Duncan Duke from Business, and Baruch Whitehead
from Music.
 Two members of Staff Council, K. Reeter and J. White, will be joining the meeting
later in the evening.
2. Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2012:
P. Rothbart presented the amended meeting minutes from November, pointing out the
changes highlighted in yellow, which include an additional comment requested by D. Lifton
(p. 2) and the contextual change (p.4). The adjournment time will be corrected to 9:10 PM.
A motion to approve was requested. L. Black so moved, and hearing no objections the
motion to accept the November minutes was approved.
Approval of Minutes: December 4, 2012:
P. Rothbart then asked Council to look over the minutes, stating the one question raised
regarding the APC document concerning credit hours vs. semester hours. They are, in fact,
the same. Hearing no discussion, a vote to approve was solicited. L. Black so
moved, T. Swenson seconded. Hearing no further discussion, and no opposition,
the minutes were accepted.
3. Chair’s Report/Additional Announcements:
P. Rothbart put out two announcements, but has yet to receive response for the at-large
member for the CCR, and asked if anyone would like to volunteer. Hearing no response, P.
Rothbart asked members to talk to some of their colleagues to see if anyone is interested.
Regarding Parking Committee, P. Rothbart has been asked to find members. Receiving one
offer to volunteer, a call has gone out to identify another member. Later this evening, he
will raise the issue of forming a multi-year task force on shared governance, with the idea of
changing the bylaws—which he plans to start working on this semester. He hopes to talk to
the President and Provost about this shortly, and asked Council members to begin thinking
about this.
The website needs to be more open and needs updating. P. Rothbart asked A. Kissiloff to
take this over and work on it, with a goal of getting more information out.
1
P. Rothbart stated he is revisiting the idea of forming a Committee on Committees. As a
result of frequent requests for committee members, which consumes a fair amount of his
time, the goal is to send those phone requests to a person who can follow up. Anyone
interested should contact Peter.
P. Rothbart also pointed out that there was a reporter present from The Ithacan.
4. APC Proposal on AP/IB/CLEP Policy:
APC is asking for review, and approval, of the AP/IB/CLEP Policy that addresses how the
college will accept credits through the AP, IB, and the CLEP Programs. Carol Henderson,
representative of the Provost’s Office, was asked to comment. Carol Henderson responded
by pointing out that the document states “this policy does not apply to transfer students (as
defined above),” but the “above” is not there. This refers to the part Council approved in
December, which defines a transfer student as someone who has at least 9 credit hours of
college work, after high school graduation, and before matriculation, here at Ithaca College.
And, those transfer students, have a separate process, which was discussed in December.
P. Rothbart opened the floor to comments and suggestions.
The discussion touched on the number of transfer credits allowed, whether or not there was
a cap, and if this policy applied specifically to one school. Students cannot apply transfer
credits to Themes and Perspectives or Capstone, which is presumed to be unique to Ithaca
College; and it is spelled out that any potential transfer courses would have to match
specific ICC requirements, which are unlikely. P. Rothbart asked if there was a plain English
version, to which Carol Henderson replied “no.” A person would have to call and talk to
someone in order to achieve this; the verbiage as stated is to satisfy the legal requirements.
With no further discussion, P. Rothbart entertained a motion to accept the policy.
S. Osterreich so moved, S. Stanfield seconded the motion. Motion was approved
with 0 opposing and 4 abstention votes.
P. Rothbart stated that the document entitled Program Level Assessment Outcomes Time
Line, is a rough draft. Carol Henderson indicated that this was just for information purposes.
She has been working with the Academic Assessment Committee, and they are putting
together this calendar. The current one expires at the end of the spring semester 2013. So
what they are doing is using the same process and requirements, and reporting that it will
used and extending it into the future. The one thing that will likely change in this draft is
reference to cycle one and cycle two. Those two cycles of assessment were utilized to meet
the requirements of Middle States for the report that is due on June 1st of this year. Once
that report goes in we won’t have to track cycles any longer; so the reference to cycle one
and cycle two will likely be removed. Carol Henderson reminded Council members that each
school has a faculty representative on the Academic Assessment Committee to whom they
can provide comments and suggestions. Those names can be found on the website for their
particular area.
5. Open Session
P. Rothbart called for Open Session, and hearing no discussion, moved on to the topic of the
Huron Report.
6. Huron Report
P. Rothbart opened the floor to discussion on the Huron Report, stressing the importance of
involvement in this process and encouraged Council members to talk to staff members in
2
their facilities to encourage them to also participate in the process, because his sentiment
was that staff is going to take the brunt of any reorganization.
A robust discussion ensued on the portion of the report “aligning program capacity with
applicable demand” with a sentiment that the section harbored hints of program review.
Some Council members expressed concern because they were under the impression that
things related to academic programs were not on Huron’s review agenda. Earlier
conversation with the Provost also supported this understanding, yet to some this sounded
very much like program review. Additionally, program review is traditionally undertaken by
Faculty.
Discussion then turned to the recommendations regarding a change in health care benefits
and parking issues, viewing these as salary reductions. One Council member felt that if
they were not going to advocate salary increases, then they should try to prevent salary
decreases that would be experienced with these two proposed changes; and suggests that
reductions come from elsewhere to avoid the long-term projected $8 million shortfall.
With regard to the parking issue, as with the health care benefit potential increase in cost, it
was expressed that this was another means to raise revenue, essentially resulting in a tax
to all employees; many of whom cannot afford such reductions in their net pay.
Motion: S. Stansfield made a motion to recommend that the Huron
recommendation regarding “aligning program capacity with applicable demand,”
not be acted upon until after a faculty-led program review. Motion was seconded
by L. Black. Questions and conversation revolved around the cycle for program review, the
alignment of student interests with programs, and Ithaca College being an enrollment
driven institution. There were concerns about accepting qualified students as opposed to
just accepting more students into popular programs. P. Rothbart reminded everyone that
President Rochon did address this.
Point of Order: P. Rothbart announced that two representatives from Staff Council had
joined the meeting.
Conversation continued regarding the evaluation of programs, and how it works. P.
Rothbart suggested that Council members do some research on other institutions that have
undergone similar review. He will contact the AAUP and ask for some guidance regarding
these matters. He called upon Council members to volunteer to survey colleagues at other
colleges and universities to learn more; and suggested the potential formation of a
committee. It was requested to find out if a copy of the Provost’s PowerPoint she presented
at the beginning of the year, which listed the criteria for assessment, could be obtained. P.
Rothbart suggested that they focus on how program review is done, and what are the
ramifications.
The motion on the floor, “Huron’s recommendation regarding ‘aligning program
capacity with applicable demand,’ not be acted upon until after a faculty-led
program review is completed or until all departments have completed their
program review,” was passed with 19 in favor, 1 opposition, 4 abstentions. This
motion will be conveyed.
P. Rothbart stated that the health benefits and parking issues were still up for discussion.
A. Kissiloff reminded everyone that they can post comments regarding this at the Sakai site.
J. Pena-Shaff reported on feedback she had received regarding the Sakai site. “It is the
beginning of the semester, and many people are preparing for their classes, and have had
3
very little time to go to the site; and some people might be concerned about posting their
comments on Sakai.” She believed her department was going to submit feedback as a
department, not as individuals. Another issue of concern she had is the impact that it was
going to have on staff. In reviewing the report, there are some recommendations to
integrate different departments, and in the process of integrating, there are new positions
and titles. Her recommendation is that an attempt be made to hire within, rather than look
for people outside, even if that requires training.
Comments were offered that these recommendations could disproportionately affect those
with families, employees that have to commute, and part-time staff/faculty. Suggestions
included tying any increases/fees to income levels.
W. Schlesinger expressed that he absolutely felt an obligation to the community to support
those who are less well paid; and suggested a motion that if parking and benefits changes
are implemented, that they take into account different economic circumstances of the
employees. P. Rothbart asked W. Schlesinger if he was making a motion and to restate. W.
Schlesinger’s motion states, “we recommend that the Huron recommendations
regarding parking and changes in benefits, if implemented, take into account the
different economic circumstances of the employees at the College.” A. Kissiloff
stated “the problem to me of different economic circumstances is I could make twice as
much as someone else and have to pay child support for 8 kids so I would tie it more to
salary than economic circumstances.” J. Harrington asked why benefits are on the chopping
block as it seems an inequitable way to find cost savings for the college as everyone is
affected differently. Giving the example of commuting to work, family responsibilities
dictate that he drive a car to work. Many staff must commute to work because they don’t
have a public transportation option. A. Monticello stated as a representative of the parttime faculty, that $100 fee could be a pretty big issue for adjunct faculty. Further discussion
on the parking fees and its impact ensued, including the “value” of the $100,000-$220,000
in revenue annually generated by such a fee.
There were several requests for word changes. The final version of the motion reads:
“Faculty Council recommends that the evaluation of the Huron sections as pertains
to parking and health benefits reflect the sensitivity to income and family
structures of IC’s employees.” The motion was passed as follows: 24 approved; 0
opposed; 2 abstentions. This motion will be conveyed to the Provost and
President.
Conversation with regard to impact on salaries was revisited, with a feeling that a possible
parking fee and increased cost in health benefits are equivalent to a reduction in salary.
With regard to health care benefits, the fact that the College is self-insured seems to result
in no real choices for less expensive premiums. Other colleges provide a variety of options,
and depending upon people’s personal situation, often a suitable, affordable option. Ithaca
College offers no such options. P. Rothbart stated that this raises an interesting larger
issue, which, given that we are evaluating, it may be time that the College should reevaluate providers
M. Andrew Hall asked if the group was dropping the parking issue. D. Duke motioned to
disregard the Huron parking recommendations. The motion was seconded. P.
Rothbart asked for clarification and rephrasing of the motion. A. Kissiloff reviewed the
information on the Sakai site for the Huron report and questioned whether administration is
including themselves in the term “staff.” After some discussion, P. Rothbart stated that
there’s a motion on the table stating that Faculty Council does not support fee for parking.
After some debate and the acceptance of friendly amendments, the final motion put forth
4
was, “Faculty Council does not support fee for parking because the projected
revenue does not outweigh the additional burden on faculty and staff.” The motion
passed with 13 in favor, 9 opposed; 4 abstentions.
New Business: D Turkon proposed that the administration undergo a similar
evaluation. P Rothbart suggested that they need to have the President come to the
February or March meeting as it makes more sense to talk to him directly about this issue.
P. Rothbart asked if there was any additional new business, and hearing none, moved to
Executive Session.
Meeting adjourned: 9:00 PM
5