Minutes for H&S Senate Meeting, Friday, September 5, 2014
Present: Brendan Murday, Jennifer Jolly, Carla Stetson, Rebecca Plante, David Turkon, Matt Klemm,
Hugh Egan, Kelley Sullivan, Wendy Dann, Maria DiFrancesco, Jennifer Tennant, Paula Murray Cole
Absent: Sharon Stansfield, Claire Gleitman (both on sabbatical)
Guest: Dean Leslie Lewis
Meeting started at 4:05pm
1) Introduction of Senate members
2) Approval of minutes (8 approved, 4 absentions)
3) Announcement and updates:
a. Elections – still need 1 seat for H&S Gen Ed for Humanities, 1 seat for CCR (1 semester
sabbatical replacement), 1 seat for Faculty Council.
b. Faculty Council update: Provost spoke at FC. Zero-based budgeting, new CIO, centralized
purchasing process, finish PT-roll out on campus, continue to develop ICC, endorsement
of service learning courses, continue to work on IC-NYC, Academic Achievement center,
looking at international competence, institutional diversity, comprehensive campaign,
master plan. Academic workflow. Change of major forms will soon go through workflow,
as well as incomplete forms, change of grade, student accessibility services. Direct any
questions to Academicworkflow@ithaca.edu
4) Hugh will serve as interim secretary for the September 26th meeting
5) Thoughts stemming from Faculty Forum
i. Provost search – should H&S Senate weigh in on Provost qualities?
ii. Thoughts from frustrations expressed around the new core curriculum. Should
there be more conversations about this? Process with regard to curriculum –
APC process has been cumbersome. Is this a good time to revisit the ICC and to
discuss what is working? Brendan will get in contact with Danette Johnson. Is
there already a system in place for reviewing it? Umbrella courses can’t be
approved. What is the mechanism for opening dialogue for APC?
6) All-school meeting
i. A Thursday in the fall at noon. Will work with Dean’s schedule to set a specific
time.
ii. Scholarship statement work for tenure – what did we learn from the process?
Concerns that an articulated number would be deemed “sufficient” by a
candidate. What is ambiguous – work in progress, evidence of achievement.
Dean’s office is very far in the review process. Getting information out to people
in different meetings.
iii. Just undertaking scholarship statements for promotions to full
7) Report from Scholarship Statement Committee: Recommends that we forward to Dean with the
Senate’s endorsement: Math and Politics
a. Math: approved but with the suggestion, in the third bullet on the bottom of the second
page, change the words “scholarship” to “evidence of ongoing scholarly activity.”
(Motion to approve to recommend to the dean.) 1 abstention.
b. Politics: approved unanimously
8) Review scholarship statements for full – Hugh Egan will be chair in Fall and Claire Gleitman in
Spring. 3 members. Besides chair, others should be 1 on Senate and 1 not. One natural science
and one fine arts. No associate or full in Natural Sciences in Senate, so need to find a full
professor in Natural Sciences not on Senate. Ask departments to send policies if they have them.
9) Update on peer reviews – Senate has recommended 10 so far. 2 are ready to be looked at
(Anthropology and Modern Languages, 4 are in subcommittee level, 8 more in departments’
hands). Jennifer Jolly and Wendy Dann will be on this subcommittee. Brendan Murday will
create a folder in the Senate’s Sakai folder.
10) Will it be useful to clarify Personnel Committees of their responsibilities? Or, would it just be a
best-practices memo? Senate decided against generating a best-practices memo, and that
instead the Dean's office will generate a document that Senate would review.
11) Meeting adjourned at 5:50pm