Faculty Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
7:00-9:00 PM
A&E VIP Room
Attendance: Peter Rothbart; Deborah Rifkin; Tatiana Patrone; Patrick Winters; Calida Barboza;
John Rosenthal; Phoebe Constantinou; Diane Long; Vivian Bruce Conger; Ted Galanthay; John
Winslow; Tom Swensen; Heather Dichter; Stan Seltzer; Jason Harrington; Matthew Geislter;
Melinda Cozzolino; Brad Rappa; Duncan Duke; Saviana Condeescu
Absent: Christine McNamara; Paula Cole Murray; Jason Freitag; Cynthia Henderson; Jason
Pfrehm; Anne Theobald; Rachel Wagner; Charis Dimaras; Kaitlin Logsdon
Excused: Diane Birr; Don Tindall
Guests: The Ithacan - taking notes/pictures
Call to order: 7:04 PM
 March 3rd meeting did not have a quorum.
Open Session: None
Approval of Minutes: Minutes for the January 20th and February 3rd meetings were approved
as amended for attendance.
Chair’s Comments:
 Shared Governance Town Hall meetings were attended by 8-10 people, all of whom
agreed that two of the options seemed unfeasible.
o They agreed that the option that works with our current system but addresses
flaws in it seemed like the best option. FC will to put up a wiki site ( or similar site
to elicit feedback and encourage further discussion among the campus
community.
 Peter attended the H&S Senate meeting to discuss better organization and
communication between groups on campus.
 The Faculty-Staff Benefits Committee has met for the first time.
 Peter discussed possible changes to Intercom to add a Governance section. It would
include official information from the President, Provost, Faculty Council, and 1 or 2 other
committees.
Agendas will now be posted a week before Faculty Council meets.
o Sent out to Deans, SGAs, Staff Council due to an increased interest in what the
Council is doing
o J. Rosenthal  suggested the agenda be available to above mentioned parties
via Sakai
o V. Conger asked why is it being send to Deans if FC doesn’t know what they’re
doing at their meetings.

Counseling Center request update: the request for and additional counseling center
professional was denied at this time.
o Peter will follow-up with the Provost regarding the reason why it was denied. FC
is not letting this drop. This raised the question of when is the appropriate time for
FC to influence the budget? How can we best advocate FC causes?

At the May meeting of Board of Trustees, the Academic Affairs committee will meet with
the FCEC to discuss the President’s “Blue Sky” initiative. FC will develop their own topics
of concern as well. Peter is trying to arrange a meeting with faculty members who are
former members of the BoT prior to this meeting to gain some perspective and context.

Brian Roberts  Work Flow update:
o Change of major going well; working on change of minor
 Making it easy to read/clear reports
o Student Accessibility – students very satisfied
o J. Rosenthal – received work flow report by mistake and it contained confidential
info. Brian will investigate.
o Brian needs a volunteer to facilitate communication between and the Workflow
group. Volunteers should talk with Peter
Committee Sakai site: The site is close to going live and will serve as a one-stop-shop for
basic information and access points related to all-school committees (membership, contact info,
policy manual, calendar, location, duties, etc.) Some problems have emerged: not all sites have
accurate personnel and contact information. Others are missing charges, etc. Some basic
website protocols may need to be established. Peter will assign 1 or 2 committees to each FC
member to troubleshoot. Report problems or issues back to Peter or Jason Freitag.
Registrar: FC unanimously moved to recommend to the registrar that the appropriate students
for graduation/degree
Shared Governance Research Reports Next Steps:
 Moved to next agenda in April
Internal Communications:
 FC discussed ways to improve communication among the various committees and
constituencies on campus. Deborah Rifkin noted that the monthly faculty meetings in the
School Music now allow a few minutes to discuss issues raised by FC.
o Peter would like to get feedback from faculty via FC – need mechanism to get
communication back to FC. Discussion followed:
 T. Patrone – H&S Senate should be that mechanism
 S. Seltzer disagrees stating that is not the role of Senate, rather, their role is
to recommend H&S School policy






Suggests:
o Have 2 to 3 town halls
o Should not be school based – FC is all college
o More universal – communication between schools
D. Rifkin – Town halls have poor attendance and therefore are not reaching
the people
J. Rosenthal – CCR mechanism was discussed on a school by school and
created narrow view
 What’s good for our majors – should be what’s good for IC
J. Harrington – asks Dean to schedule meeting if there is a large issue
 contacts other schools to get input
V. Conger – uncomfortable to leave this to town hall with such poor
attendance
T. Swensen – suggests posting a forum online and get feedback in order to
create discussion
 J. Harrington –make it part of intercom
 J. Rosenthal – comments should be on FC Sakai
 Peter – post news on Intercom with link to Saka. The concensus was
to try this last approach, which Peter will do.
Executive Session discussion:
o H&S Senate meeting – feels FC is using Executive Session too much (everything
should be public except personnel)
 Concerned FC is making decisions that should be public and therefore
abusing executive session
 J. Harrington – in favor of leaving executive session on agenda
 S. Seltzer – against putting executive session on agenda as it may be
misinterpreted; 20 minutes executive session always listed on agenda
 D. Long – If there isn’t an executive session, it should be stated in minutes
 J. Rosenthal – don’t put time frame of executive session on agenda; or list
executive session if required at 8:50
o J. Rosenthal motion to write it on agenda or write as needed
  P. Winter seconds
 Discussion:
 J. Harrington – what is the procedure?
o How do you call executive session if it’s not on agenda?
 B. Rappa – not abusing it, acceptable to list on agenda
 V. Conger – executive session is to discuss things without
administration
 T. Patrone – why is part of the meeting closed if the agenda/minutes
are open to the public?
  D. Rifkin – question called


 6 in favor
 11 opposed
 1 abstention
 Motion is NOT passed
 The result is that we will continue as is (executive session on
agenda)
S. Seltzer – executive committee should be able to make agenda without
motions
FC reapportionment is due:
 Question in regards to representations
o Every school gets one rep
 One rep for every 20 FTE Faculty with provision for rounding
 stated in bylaws
New Business:
 Memo from J. Rosenthal, T. Swenson
o Recommending several motions in memo
 Copy of college budget should be available – currently it is not
 College worries about balance of expenses/revenue but needs to worry
about cash flow
 Budget claims to represent decrease in structural surplus
 Budget no longer tells expenses by division
 Spending money for academics/administration?
o Details will be provided for new budget (1516)
o Recommends these details be provided on regular basis
 IC more affordable – tuition room/board will go up 2 or 3 percent in the next
few years
 Increment - CPI has changed system
 CPI includes: volatile; non-volatile going up 1.6/1.7%
 Total funds for salary/wages declining
 $2 million in salary and benefits will be cut
 Increase in budget for professional services (consultants)
 Recommend more details about increases
 Capital items:
 Half is deferred maintenance
 Cameras for Park School
 Last year’s/this year’s budget  fell short in student enrollment
 Increase in endowment income
 FC wants to know how this is computed
 Cash flow spending to increase
 Discussion to be continued in April meeting
Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 9:01 PM