Minutes for H&S Faculty Senate Meeting, Friday Nov 1st, 2013:
Present: Peyi Soyinka-Airewele, Dara Engler, Hugh Egan, Claire Gleitman, Peter Melcher, Sharon
Stansfield, Carla Stetson and Jennifer Tennent
Guest: Dean Leslie Lewis
Excused Jennifer Jolly (sabbatical leave), Aaron Weinberg (sabbatical leave), Brendan Murday, Paula
Murray Cole, Michael Trotti, Kelly Sullivan, David Turkon
1) Meeting called to order at 4:04. Approval of minutes: Motion to approve, with modifications:
7/9 Approve 2 abstentions.
2) UPDATES
a. APC committee member update. The position has been filled.
b. Parking fee notice sent from Senate to Provost and President. Senate received a
response that there is a committee established and that our letter has been sent to
them. No word from President.
c. Procedure to implement Senate’s recommendations. Senate has received a response
from the Provost on how to implement H&S policies and procedures that been reviewed
and approved by H&S Senate and the Dean. The email from the Provost will be
forwarded to Dean Lewis.
d. Sabbatical changes. Sabbatical leave proposal guidelines are being revised to clearly
identify expected faculty activities. Changes have been made to the first paragraph of
the sabbatical guidelines. The new guidelines highlight that faculty expectations must
be clearly defined. This was brought forward to Council and approved last Spring (2013).
i. Changes to note to the new guidelines: The last sentence of the first paragraph
suggests that sabbatical leave may be moving from something that was an
expectation to a more competitive model. The last sentence also emphasizes
past sabbatical productivity as a requirement for sabbatical approval. This raised
questions from Senate: How is sabbatical productivity measured? Simply based
upon whether faculty members submit a sabbatical report? Or, are there other
grounds for denying sabbatical proposals based on productivity?
ii. Senate recognizes that there is a contradiction in the new language: Sabbaticals
are intended “to restore one’s academic energies”; yet later language
emphasizes specific outcomes as expectations for a sabbatical.
iii. The new language will be put forward to Faculty Council on Tuesday Nov 1st.
Gleitman will share Senate’s concerns with our H&S faculty reps on Council.
iv. Senate discussed inviting Steve Skopik or Rebecca Plante to a Senate meeting to
answer Senate questions and to provide clarification.
3) Health Care Benefits: Significant changes have been made to the policy for couples employed
by Ithaca College. Benefits for married couples who both work at IC will result in about $1600
increase in cost for health insurance. Ithaca College claims that the change is being made to be
consistent with the market. Timing and notification was poorly administered, with affected
faculty receiving only two weeks’ notice, which is not enough time for faculty to adjust to this
financial change.
a. Senate is not clear if this issue is for Senate or for Council. Senate estimates that about
10 to 20 faculty would be impacted by this change.
b. The Executive Committee was charged with discussing whether a memo should be sent
to the President and HR from Senate.
4) Reports from Subcommittees:
a. Survey sent to the H&S Chairs regarding process surrounding student statements. The
subcommittee working on this issue shared the survey with Senate. No response yet
from chairs.
5) Dean Lewis leads a discussion on Dean’s Merit
a. Handout from Dean Lewis which was a memo that was sent out to Chairs on Feb 22,
2013. Merit Increments: The breakdown of the merit increments from last year was as
follows: 2% was awarded for General Merit. Of this 2%, 70% of it is used by H&S for
Level I Merit. The 30% that is left over is split into 20% for Departmental Merit and 10%
is the Dean’s Merit. The current model uses the total 30% for Departmental Merit since
there are no criteria or guidelines given to the Dean to designate who should get the
Dean’s Merit. Note that College policy is set up so that the overall faculty merit’s
increase cannot be more, in total, than 1% of the faculty members’ current salary. This
is designed to cap salary raises at 3 to 4% resulting from Merit increments.
b. Discussion – Should Senate revisit Dean’s Merit?
i. Currently, only departments have guidelines that are used to determine merit
recipients. However, some departments in H&S do not follow their merit
guidelines and just rotate who gets awarded merit through the department.
ii. Faculty have mixed feelings about the merit process. Some feel that it does not
justly reward faculty accomplishments and service commitments, especially for
service that is not attached to release time.
iii. We have had conversations on this topic in the past, and extensive previous
committee work resulted in the current model. It should be noted that other
schools at IC do not do anything like what H&S does when it comes to merit pay
increases. The other Schools at IC have a more competitive model. They do not
pull out the 70% of the merit to distribute across the faculty pool.
iv. As noted earlier, our current model, using only departmental merit, does not
capture the service work that is done by many faculty members for the school
of H&S.
v. Any changes to the procedure of awarding Dean’s Merit would need to be well
thought out and specific; the dean is not simply looking for a sentence that
highlights excellence in scholarship, service, and teaching.
c. How do we approach merit issue? Is the percentage for general and level II merit
appropriate? Do we need to revisit this process too?
i. Could Dean Lewis lay out some guidelines that she thinks would be helpful in
improving the current system? Do faculty members in H&S want to change the
system? Is there equity in departments under the current system? Overall, the
current process is not clear to all faculty members. What are the alternatives to
the current practice? Market based system is still in place
ii. Senate agreed to address Deans Merit first. Dean Lewis will share her thoughts
on general merit at some later date.
iii. Should Dean’s Merit involve some kind of nomination process? Should it be
purely self-nominating, or could others nominate deserving colleagues?
iv. Deadline: The Dean needs these guidelines by the start of the spring semester,
ideally at our 1st meeting in the spring.
v. Motion to form an Ad hoc Merit Committee: It will consist of two members:
Hugh Egan and Clara Stetson. Charge of the Committee: Present some
suggested guidelines to the Senate by our next meeting.
6) Intellectual Property Policy: Although the Provost is removing the language pertaining to
College ownership of course information, another part of the policy has generated concerns: see
2.20.3, #5. Should we ask for more specificity? See relevant document.
a. Number 5: Emphasizes faculty development that developed from an “unusual
contribution” of college resources.
b. Resources: Would this include selling art work that was created at Ithaca College by Art
faculty? The Art department pays for studio time. Is an EGI a significant resource? Is
technology a resource? What resources constitute a significant contribution?
c. An Intellectual Property Policy is currently in place but it is not clear. The old version
seems clearer than the new version. Examples: what is meant by student involvement
and staff time? Changes include capturing the first $25,000 instead of $50,000. For
inventions, the department use to get 10% of profits and now that is gone from the new
document. Ownership is new.
d. What to do? Senate will query faculty that this may affect and send a letter to the
Provost raising our concerns/questions.
7) Questions regarding types of activities that can use the annual support for faculty travel
($1500) allotted by the Dean’s Office:
a. What are the precise parameters governing the use of this money? Some faculty
members have asked whether those parameters might be broadened.
i. According to Dean Lewis, the funds can be used to attend and/or present at a
conference or professional meeting, or to chair or participate on a panel; to
participate in research training; to attend workshops; or to engage in other
forms of professional travel, all with prior approval from the Dean.
ii. For clarification see 2012-2013 Professional Travel Procedures for faculty and
staff in the School of H&S.
iii. Question to the Dean: Can faculty use their professional development funds to
purchase item such as books, equipment or supplies? No, mainly due to tax
issues since the funds are allocated specifically for travel. Nothing used with
these funds can end up “belonging” to faculty. These funds are not a benefit,
and if changes were made, this would change the funds so that they would have
to be categorized differently, as taxable income.
iv. If they need funds for professional development that does not involve travel,
faculty need to look for other sources of money supplied by Ithaca College.
v. Membership in professional societies can be covered on an as-needed basis for
a particular reason, such as attending a conference.
vi. Only legitimate travel is covered.
8) For our next meeting: How much authority does Senate have to make recommendations that
departments must abide by, assuming that these Senate recommendation are accepted by the
Dean? What are the limits of Senate’s authority? Some recent issues that have developed
between Senate and departments have prompted the Executive Committee to think that this is
a question worth addressing.
9) Homework: Faculty should read Senate’s bylaws
10) Meeting adjourned at: 5:42pm