Ithaca College
Faculty Council
November 13, 2012
A & E Center – VIP Lounge
Present:
B. Belyea, D. Birr, L. Black, J. Blumberg, J. Bonnetta, B. Bower, K. Breuer, W. Dann,
S. Freedman, S. Grigoriev, M. Hall, J. Harrington, S. Howard-Baptiste, A. Kissiloff,
S. Lahr, D. Lifton, S. Mauk, C. McNamara, B. Murday, S. Osterreich, T. Patrone,
J. Pena-Shaff, J. Rosenthal, P. Rothbart, W. Schlesinger, S. Stansfield, T. Swensen,
D. Tindall, D. Turkon
Absent:
J. Stafford
Excused: C. Henderson, E. Kelly, A. Monticello
Guests:
E. Gonzalez (Ithacan), Huron Consulting Group (R. Woodruff, L. Halloran),
D. Johnson, M. Kelly
1. Welcome and Announcements:
P. Rothbart opened the session, welcoming D. Rumsey who will be assuming the role of
minute taking for the Council, as M.A. Taylor moves on to other duties in the Provost’s
Office. It was brought to the attention of Council and guests that there was a reporter and
photographer from The Ithacan present.
2. Open Session: None
3. Approval of Minutes: October 2, 2012:
Motion to approve the amended minutes was made and unanimously approved.
4. Chair’s Report:
A Faculty Council Executive meeting with the President and Provost was held to discuss a
variety of items. A joint statement has been issued to the press, which should be available
soon.
The President has announced that the new media policy has been rescinded, effective
immediately.
Complete Middle State’s Reports will be posted online at the Provost’s website and will be
password protected. P. Rothbart issued a reminder that as with anything posted on the
password protected site, it is not for general or public distribution.
There was an expressed concern that required department faculty meetings may conflict
with upcoming faculty meetings. P. Rothbart said he would look into that, and to hold the
November 27th date until such time that he could check on room availability.
W. Schlesinger thanked P. Rothbart for arranging these meetings, and made this motion:
MOTION: In order to improve communications between faculty and the
administration, Faculty Council urges the faculty in schools to invite the President
of the College to a faculty meeting at least once a year, preferable each semester.
The motion was seconded.
There was discussion and shared ideas of how to have informative, and inclusive,
meetings where faculty from the schools could meet for a better understanding of
each school’s perspective on various topics of discussion.
VOTE: Motion passed with one opposed, and one abstention.
5. Provost’s Report
Provost Kelly clarified M.A. Taylor’s transition from Faculty Council to other duties within the
Provost’s Office. Explaining the recent personnel changes in Director of Grants and
Faculty Council Meeting Minutes for November 13, 2012
1
Research position, which has been open for some time, many of those duties are being
transitioned to W. Pickren; and M.A. Taylor will continue to work with the Biosafety, Animal
Care and Use, and Human Subject Research Committees.
Provost Kelly provided an update on the Central Advising System and the search for a
director. It was reported that the search committee is very pleased with the caliber of
applicants, and they have begun to narrow down the strong pool of candidates via
telephone interviews; and will be bringing candidates to campus for interviews.
IC NYC Program for spring is looking very strong. The goal is to have a minimum of 50
students per semester; and it looks like they will, in fact, have between 48-52 students in
the spring. Students are primarily from the Business School and Park School, but there is
likely to be representation from H&S, HSHP, and Music schools.
Provost Kelly addressed the concerns that have been expressed, in the context of support
for the integrated core curriculum, about the speed with which things are moving forward.
Acknowledging the tremendous pace for which things are moving, she emphasized the
importance, and challenge thereof, in defining the general education program for the
College, and also assessment results. Students have to be in the program on time to have
assessment results before those accreditations reviews occur. Understanding that faculty
want to get this as close to perfect the first time, it is important that, despite the concerns
about the pace and the increased workload, the College must keep in mind that this extra
effort will be worth it in the end.
D. Lifton thanked Provost Kelly and asked her to consider her role as faculty advocate on
the budget committee. Expressing concern with regard to a memorandum dated October
31, 2012, from C. Sgrecci concerning an annual salary increment pool in the 2-3% range.
Further, Lifton expressed concern over confidentiality and whether or not the Provost is
advocating on behalf of the faculty with regard to the budget process. Provost Kelly
responded to the statement, indicating the budget process is a collaborative effort. During
this process it is important to look at the entire budgetary picture for the institution and
attempt to stay focused on the relative affordability of an Ithaca College education for
students.
Discussion returned to concerns over the pace and whether or not the core requirements
will be adequately functional. P. Rothbart interjected that, in the area of pacing everything,
the fact that we don’t have to have everything in place by fall, is worth exploring how to
give faculty a little extra time to relieve some of the pressure.
D. Lifton voiced concern about the intention to cut the size of the faculty, citing again, the
letter from C. Sgrecci, in which it indicates that all funding for positions related benefits
must be provided for by reallocating existing salary dollars. Lifton called upon Provost Kelly
to stop academic program review until she believes budgetary times are more amenable, or
that in this budget, she place funding to implement recommendations that come to her to
expand a program(s).
Provost Kelly responded by stating that there is a difference between reallocation and
cutting faculty. A program that wants more faculty is one issue. If the College were to
reallocate faculty from one area to another to support that, this is not actually cutting
faculty, because the size of the faculty stays the same. Redistribution tends to occur
through retirements and actual shrinkage as enrollment shifts. It was reiterated that the
end goal is to keep Ithaca College affordable for its students. This does not mean that
recommendations that are put forth to increase programs are not appropriate. Those may
just be put on hold for a while.
Faculty Council Meeting Minutes for November 13, 2012
2
J. Pena-Shaff stated that the faculty are working very hard, not only in the classroom, but
outside the classroom, and are a part of the student experience. The increased cost in
health insurance, particularly for those with children, was higher than the salary increase.
Provost Kelly emphasized that she absolutely agreed the faculty are critical to the student
experience. She suggested that people look around at the number of institutions of higher
education that have actually frozen for more than one year in a row any salary increase.
Salary is the biggest expense for the institution. This is a different era in higher education,
and it is something that needs to recognized.
J. Pena-Shaff pointed out that faculty took a salary freeze two years ago when enrollment
was actually higher than it is now; and never received any raises retroactively. The faculty
knows how to make sacrifices, but it didn’t pay off.
J. Rosenthal: In support of some of the things said by the Provost, that when the budget
projections are reviewed for next year, he believes there they will see that the picture is
much more austere than expected.
6. ICC Report:
Danette Johnson provided a brief update on the activities of ICC, acknowledging the more
than 98 faculty members, who have worked on a variety to things to date.
About a week prior, a call went out for faculty participation in groups to develop a process
for evaluating electronic learning portfolios, to develop assessment rubrics, and a themes
steering committee. Development of the steering committee is really important. There are
concerns about how we are going to evaluate the portfolio component, and the faculty will
be developing these processes. So far, about 15 people have expressed interest, and
meetings will begin before the end of the semester.
Task Screen has been selected as the provider of integrated portfolio and assessment
management for campus wide use. A very robust system, it allows students to create
multiple portfolios for multiple needs, with access to different audiences. For assessment, it
allows linking to hundreds of national and state standards to create custom rubrics and
report in a number of different ways, which should make faculty work, with regard to
assessment, simpler.
Questions regarding the assessment of e-portfolios and potential extra workload for faculty
were discussed. D. Johnson stated that there are a lot of concerns about substantial
additional faculty workload, but this is one of the things the faculty group will be trying to
figure out this spring: how do we make it as simple as possible, as un-intrusive as possible,
and not overburden faculty with it?
P. Rothbart clarified with D. Johnson that the committee is not yet fully formed. There is no
pre-set number of committee members, and the committee is made up of 100% faculty. It
is expected that the committee’s recommendations will eventually become academic policy.
Several more questions were asked about liability issues, copyrighted media, assessment,
and ease of use. D. Johnson indicated that these were all things that could be discussed by
the committee. Again, concerns arose over the speed at which these things are being
pursued. The pace is something that is acknowledged by all parties.
7. Huron Consulting Group:
Robert Woodruff and Lauren Halloran presented a brief presentation on their Phase 1 of
Effective and Affordability review. Huron was engaged by the College to take a look at the
efficiency and effectiveness of its administrative units with an eye towards keeping the
Ithaca College education affordable. Administrative units reviewed include information
Faculty Council Meeting Minutes for November 13, 2012
3
technology, finance, human resources, procurement, and facilities. R. Woodruff emphasized
that they were not engaged to conduct academic review.
R. Woodruff explained their process for information gathering includes a document which
requested information on the institution, surveys, and face-to-face conversations. After
review, they identify four to five opportunities, in each of the 10 identified areas, developing
business cases around those opportunities to generate incremental revenue, cost savings,
and service improvements. Phase 1 findings were presented a couple of weeks ago to the
five-member steering committee, and Huron is now working on Phase 2.
D. Lifton asked Huron to consider review of how the College manages its endowment. R.
Woodruff replied that the College utilizes an endowment consultant to determine asset
allocation. Further comments on the endowment, and any potential surpluses, should be
reviewed, particularly for its potential in alleviating annual salary increments.
R. Woodruff further emphasized that Huron is not engaged in academic review when
questions regarding student advising resurfaced. It was suggested that the advising center,
which will be a major structural component of the College, may be left out of the Huron
review process with no opportunity to examine it during the implementation process; with
no opportunity to determine its efficiency and effectiveness. S. Osterreich expressed
concerns about the welfare of the staff through this process, particularly potential staff
layoffs. R. Woodruff indicated that their recommendations are meant to stretch dollars, and
assure resources go to the core activities of the institution. Further discussion arose around
a study indicating the ideal 3:1 ratio of faculty to administration, citing a recent Chronicle of
Higher Education article. Ithaca College has a two to three ratio, and Huron was questioned
about whether or not they are looking at benchmarks such as this one.
Concerns about the confidentiality of the survey that was circulated to faculty were raised,
and whether or not there is a list of faculty who have responded to the survey, and a list of
those that have not. R. Woodruff stated that he has seen no such list. The likelihood is that
any email reminders about not responding yet to the survey are automatically generated by
the system.
It was suggested that P. Rothbart share with the Staff Council, all the information sent to
the Faculty Council regarding this review.
8. Faculty Handbook Amendment Motion
P. Rothbart asked for discussion on the proposed amendment to the 4.6.2 Office Hours
section. Clarification on the purpose of creating this amendment was requested. The intent
of the changes is to provide more flexibility to respond to students.
J. Rosenthal, having heard no discussion speaking particularly to the merit of the issue,
suggested proceeding to a vote. This was seconded.
VOTE: Two abstentions; amendment passed.
S. Osterreich requested obtaining a report from the Faculty Handbook Amendment
Committee on their progress of thinking about IC 20/20 and processes.
9. New Business: None
10.Executive Session: P. Rothbart moved to Executive Session.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Faculty Council Meeting Minutes for November 13, 2012
4