FACULTY SENATE AND OTHER COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORTS

2003-2004

 

 

Faculty Senate Budget Review Committee

Annual Report, 2003-2004

 

            This is an interim report.  The nature of accounting procedures at Binghamton University, as elsewhere, make it impossible to present a detailed report of expenditures for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 until accounts are closed and discrepancies rectified.  Preparing final data for a fiscal year that ends on June 30 usually takes until October.  In the meantime, therefore, this report covers only the activities of the BRC until the end of the Spring Semester 2004.  Budget data will follow.

            The energies of the Budget Review Committee during the past academic year were primarily focused on completing a suitable platform for reporting expenditures down to the unit level in order to complement the data already available broken out by vice-presidential sectors.  This task is essential to replace the anachronistic approach previously taken by Binghamton University when the expenditure of state appropriated dollars only was reported down to the unit level (i.e. department where appropriate, or college if it is not departmentalized).  The new approach also incorporates expenditures made from such revenue sources as the Binghamton University Foundation, the SUNY Research Foundation, the Income Fund Reimbursable, etc. 

            Designing a presentation format that would achieve “all-funds” reporting of expenditures down to the unit level has been the most complicated part of the larger task of modernizing the BRC’s expenditures reports.  It involved soliciting expenditure reports from each of the college deans, as well as the directors of the librairies and athletics.  Considerable time was spent, both in committee meetings and in discussions between myself, various deans, directors, and their representatives, in reviewing preliminary presentations made to the BRC and searching for relatively standardized reporting categories that could accomodate inevitable differences between sectors.  This process was very ably assisted by Jim Van Voorst (Assistant Vice-President for Administration and head of the Business Office) and Michael McGoff (Vice-Provost for Planning and Budget).  In an effort to find common ground in the reporting of expenditures for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, each of the deans and directors submitted at least two expenditure reports during the spring semester of 2004.  Although the final versions of some of these reports did not fully conform to expectations, remarkable progress was made in a relatively short period of time.  It must be emphasized that such progress required extensive cooperation from numerous individuals whose previous job descriptions did not include preparing expenditure reports for the BRC.

            In the process of designing a presentation format for reporting expenditures on an “all-funds” basis, the BRC learned much about the limits of its technical expertise and the difficulty of soliciting data outside of a standardized reporting structure.  As a result, a tacit agreement has been reached with the appropriate administrative personnel that henceforth data collection for the BRC’s annual expenditure report will be gathered, processed and presented by those members of the senior administration charged with budgetary planning for Binghamton University.

 

Howard G. Brown

Chairman, Faculty Senate Budget Review Committee

 

Faculty Members: Serdar Atav, Louis Braiotta, Peter Knuepfer, George McKee, Richard Plumb, Gary Truce; Student Members: ... Other Members: Anthony Ferrara (Vice-President for Administration), Mary Ann Swain (Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs).



Report of the Faculty Senate Bylaws Review Committee

Academic Year 2003-2004

 

 

Committee Members: David Hanson (chairperson), Wayne Jones (non-voting), Sarah Maximiek, Randy McGuire, Richard Pastore, Nancy Stamp (non-voting), Libby Tucker

 

 

The Bylaws Review Committee met regularly during the academic year.  All recommendations were unanimously approved by the committee (including the "non-voting" members). The following recommendations, for changes to the bylaws and wording changes in the bylaws, were sent to the FSEC:

 

1) the addition, on page 6, under "5. Executive Committee."  of an item "d" as follows:

 

d.  Senate Membership.  Faculty elected to the Executive Committee need not have been elected to the Faculty Senate prior to their election to the Executive Committee.  Once elected to the Executive Committee one automatically becomes a member of the Faculty Senate.

 

This is not a bylaws change and, in our view, would not require a vote.  We had trouble locating the information.  This wording change would simply make this information less difficult to

locate.

 

 

2) that Faculty Senate membership be limited to two consecutive terms rather than four consecutive years.

 

Specifically:

a) page 8, line 5:  delete "of two years"

b) page 8, line 6:  replace "four consecutive years" with  "two consecutive terms"

 

This change would appear to apply only to the Senate and FSEC leadership.  It would facilitate staggered two-year terms of leadership for the two bodies - - with faculty members who have

already been on these bodies.  This would appear to be desirable in negotiations with the campus administration.

 

 

3) that representation on the Faculty Senate and FSEC be changed as follows:

 

a) Page 3, line 2.  Add "but if an academic sub-unit is housed in the Graduate School it will be considered an academic sub-unit for the purpose of representation on the Faculty Senate."

 

b) Page 2, last line.  Add "any program with its own personnel berth that is temporarily housed in the Graduate School".  (This item was approved via e-mail, not at a regular Bylaws Review Committee meeting.)

 

 b) Title B.3.c Page 5, lines 8-11.  Reword to read: "Units or sub-units having at least 5 and fewer than 10 members shall elect one senator.  Units or sub-units having at least 10 but no more than 24 members shall elect 2 senators. Units or sub-units having more than 24 members shall elect 3 senators.  Units or sub-units having fewer than 5 members may elect one senator or may, by mutual agreement, combine with another sub-unit for the purpose of representation on the faculty senate.  If either option is chosen, the sub-unit must notify the Secretary of the Faculty Senate, in writing, of its decision to exercise this option; this notification must be given prior to the next scheduled election.  (See Article III.B.6.b. below.)  Such sub-units that do not choose one of these options will not be represented on the faculty senate.  (See Article I.h. above.)"

 

c) Title B.5.b.  Page 6.  Add:  "iii.  If one of the Academic Units listed in parts B.5.b.i or B.5.b.ii has fewer than 10 voting faculty, that unit will not have a member on the Executive Committee and the size of the Executive Committee will be reduced accordingly.  Such a unit may send a non-voting observer from among its voting faculty to Executive Committee meetings."

 

The logic behind all recommendations under Section 3) was to try to make sure that all faculty members are represented on the senate and make representation somewhat more proportional to

faculty size than it now is.  After some discussion within the FSEC, the Bylaws Review Committee reconsidered 3c) above and unanimously (including its ex officio non-voting members) reaffirms the recommendation.  The following statement, drafted by one committee member summarizes our views: 

 

"The Faculty Senate is the representative body of the faculty of the university.  The distribution of membership of the Senate, and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, has been designed to try to ensure a reasonable representation of the university's full time faculty, and not to guaranteeing significant permanent representation of the specific special interests of any small group of faculty.  Because all of the membership changes proposed by the current      Bylaws Committee for both the Faculty Senate and Faculty Senate Executive Committee are in keeping with these principles, the committee stands by all of its recommended Bylaws changes."

 

 

4) the following addition.  Page 8.  "9.a.iv.  Unless otherwise specified in these bylaws, ex-officio members of committees and subcommittees are voting members.  Committee and sub-committee chairs have the right to vote or to break tie votes (their choice) but not both."

 

This is in conformity with Robert's Rules of Order.  We think these ought to be specifically stated in our bylaws because there is considerable confusion over the issues.  This might require a vote because we would propose leaving the above in our bylaws even if Roberts' Rules were to change at some time in the future.



Convocations Committee

Binghamton University

 

 

MEMORANDUM

 

DATE:             October 12, 2004

 

TO:                  Kathy Bowman, Faculty Senate Secretary

 

FROM:            Bruce Borton, committee chair

 

RE:                   Annual Report of Convocations Committee

 


In response to the committee’s charge to allocate funds for the purpose of bringing programs to campus that enhance and support the intellectual, cultural and artistic aspects of the academic curriculum, and to focus our efforts to as diverse a community as possible, the Convocations Committee awarded funds to 15 separate events during the 2003-04 school year.  Allocations ranged from a minimum of $250 to a maximum of $2000.  Our annual allocation of $8000 was added to the previous year’s reserve of $3000 for a total of $11,000 in available funds.  It has been the practice of the committee over the past years to try to maintain and grow a surplus for occasional more costly events.  Grants this year totaled $10,000 leaving a balance of $1000.

 

The organizations and events funded by the committee are listed below:

 

Hillel at Binghamton

Pharaohs Daughter

1000

Latin Amer Student U

Bobby Gonzles speech

300

Women’s Studies

Guerilla Girls (Fall, 2004)

2000

Judaic Studies

Lawrence Langer presentation

400

English Dept.

Iroquoian Women’s Spirituality

500

Phi Iota alpha

Black Solidarity and Pan-Africanism…

500

Inter Cultural Awareness

Dominican Black Women

250

Multicultural Resource Cen.

MLK: Roy Brooks speech

1000

Caribbean Student Assoc.

Carnival/Culture Night

750

Black Student Union

Angela Davis speech

1000

Haitian Bicentennial Comm.

Conference: Haitian Revolution

500

Sinfonia

BU Sinfonia Inaugural Concert

300

CEMERS

Conference: Science, Literature and the Arts

500

Ballroom Dance Assoc.

Dance Revolution

500

Campus consortium

Richard Trexler Fest

500

                                                                                                                               

 


Convocations Committee Membership:

 

Serdar Atav, Decker School of Nursing                        atav@binghamton.edu              7-4893

Bruce Borton, Department of Music (Chair)                  bborton@binghamton.edu         7-2591

Karen Barzman, Art History                                         kbarzman@binghamton.edu      7-2009

David Hagerbaumer, Campus Activities                        dhagerba@binghamton.edu       7-2811

Kim Kroll, Campus Activities                                        klieb@binghamton.edu             7-2811

Tammy Behonick, Academic Affairs                             ttara@binghamton.edu              7-4859

Maureen White, President’s office                                 mcwhite@binghamton.edu        7-2131

Nigel Westmaas, GSO representative                           lmhando@binghamton.edu        7-4247

3 undergraduate student vacancies



DATE:                        May 5, 2004

 

TO:                             The Faculty Senate

 

FROM:                       Educational Policy and Priorities Committee,

                                    Susan Strehle, Chair

 

SUBJECT:                 Report, 2003-2004

 

The committee met frequently in the fall semester. 

 

We forwarded to the Senate Executive Committee the following degree proposals:

 

  1. Translation PhD.  This proposal had been approved in the previous spring but was returned to EPPC for clarification.  It was eventually approved by the Senate.
  2. Evolutionary Studies Integrated Curriculum, an interdisciplinary undergraduate program.  This proposal was eventually taken to the Senate and approved.

 

In addition, the EPPC continued its role in oversight of the assessment efforts in General Education and the major. 

 

  1. We received and considered the preliminary ACT reports from L (laboratory science), FL (foreign language), and CT/IM (critical thinking/ information management) Gen Ed areas. 
  2. We recommended and implemented a communication to the teachers of L courses regarding the learning outcomes for this area, which include students formulating and testing hypotheses.
  3. We met with the CT/IM ACT to discuss their recommendations for increasing awareness of the learning outcomes for this area and their proposal for a pilot project focusing on assessment of CT/IM skills by means of an interactive online tool.  A faculty focus group considering the design of this tool was subsequently held.
  4. We met with members of the wellness ACT to discuss issues arising related to assigning S credit for athletes involved in team sports.
  5. With the Chair of the UUCC present, we reviewed the draft learning outcomes for each Gen Ed area and made minor revisions.  Some questions remain only with regard to the S (wellness) outcome, which lists topics students should know about:  should the outcome imply only one of these topics, or possibly more?  This issue will be resolved next year, after their preliminary ACT report is completed. 
  6. We reviewed the status of assessment of the major across the university.  Most programs have submitted a statement of desired learning outcomes and a method of assessment and will begin to use these in the current year.  A few have not yet submitted plans. 

 

We also discussed the academic issues arising from the S&E shortage in Harpur College. 

 

Committee membership, 2003-2004:

Susan Strehle, English, Chair

Frank Cardullo, Mechanical Engineering

Jeanne Eichelberger, Libraries

Harold Lewis, Systems Science & Industrial Engineering

Burrell Montz, Geography

Julian Shepherd, Biological Sciences

Al Vos, English

Stacy Chapnick, undergraduate

Lindsey Krecko, undergraduate

Jeanine Boehme, graduate

Provost Mary Ann Swain, ex officio

Vice Provost H. Stephen Straight, ex officio



Report from Faculty Senate EOP Advisory Committee

2003-2004 Academic Year

Jane Connor, Chairperson

October 5, 2004

 

 

          During this period the committee met with the Director of EOP, Dr. James Pogue, three times each semester.  We reviewed and supported the efforts of the EOP staff to provide academic, financial and emotional assistance to the students they serve.  We discussed issues and problems related to the summer program and the goal of building the skills of the students in writing, mathematics, and critical reasoning.  We solicited complementary textbooks from faculty for use in the tutorial center for EOP students.  We also discussed the difficulties faculty of color face at Binghamton University and the impact that this has on EOP students, since many of these faculty members provide a vital basis of support for the students and a disproportionate number of these faculty members leave the university.

 

 

 

Committee members:       Jane Connor (Chair)

                                      Janet Hogan

                                      Tiffany Patterson

                                      Kelvin Santiago

                                      Leo Wilton

                                      Mark Zhang

                                      Orlando Harris

                                      Daniel Moleski

                                      Shi-Fang Ruan

                                      Shary Sanchez

                                      Chrispin Kowenje

                                      Don Blake

                                      Cheryl Brown

                                      James Pogue

                                      Francine Montemurro

                                      H. Stephen Straight



Annual Report of the Faculty Senate

Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC)

2003-2004

 

Much of the first semester was dedicated to the task of modifying the 2002 – 2003 report to the Faculty Senate to achieve consensus. This was accomplished and a revised report was submitted to the senate and received by them.

 

A major activity of the committee involved discussions with Howard Brown chairman of the Budget Review Committee. These discussions centered about the concept of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee ceding responsibility for monitoring the budgetary issues of the intercollegiate athletic program to the Budget Review Committee. Ultimately it was decided by the by the IAC that unless there were specific transgressions committed by the Athletic Department and reported to the IAC, the Budget Review Committee was the appropriate venue for fiscal monitoring of the expenditures on intercollegiate athletics.

 

It was subsequently decided that the emphasis during the 2004 – 2005 academic year would be on the academic consequences of the intercollegiate athletic program. Such as special admission policies, graduation rates, dropout rates, majors, GPA of athletes.

 

A major problem is the composition of the committee. If we were to operate by strict parliamentary procedure we would have accomplished nothing, because we almost never had a quorum. There were no graduate or undergraduate student members on the committee. That resulted in three voting members never present. One faculty member missed all meetings during this academic year. It is the chairman’s view that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee should meet with the IAC to discuss possible restructuring of the IAC.

 

 

Committee Composition:

The composition of the committee is four faculty with vote drawn from various schools plus the Faculty Representative to the NCAA without vote; 2 undergraduate students (1 female, 1 male) with vote designated by the Student Association; 1 graduate student teaching assistant with vote designated by the Graduate Student Organization; Director of Physical Education, Recreation and Athletics ex officio without vote; 1 individual designated by the Vice President for Student Affairs without vote.

 

Members of the committee include;

Frank Cardullo (Chair), Mechanical Engineering

Dennis Lasser, Management & Faculty Representative to the NCAA,

Dan McCormack, Student Affairs

Frank Newman, English (teaching abroad during Spring Semester)

Jim Stark, Art

Joel Thirer, Director - Health, Physical Education and Athletics

Jian Wang, Physics

Rob Vanbuskirk – Biology (interim replacement for Frank Newman)

Two undergraduate students – Vacant

Graduate student/TA – vacant

 

Submitted by Frank Cardullo, Chair



Annual Report of the

Faculty Senate Library Committee [6/13/04]

 

            The Committee met in the Fall and Spring terms to review library matters.  New initiatives in the past 12-18 months in the Libraries include installation of self-check circulation and new entrance/new-book-area lighting in Bartle.     Over the next 18-26 months, with the time depending on necessary asbestos abatement, an “information commons” will be created in Bartle where government documents have been.  This area will also include a full set of computer services so that students and other users can access library services and have full computer-pod software available.  For the Science Library, self-check circulation will be installed and an “information commons” area is under consideration.

A significant part of the Director’s time, energy, and focus has been devoted to changes to enhance the fund raising for the Libraries and the University.  A special Library Retreat took place on 13 August 2003 for “strategic planning and team building”.  There has been a reorganization of libraries with an Associate Director for Budget and Technical Services (Frank Mols), an Associate Director for Public Services (being filled by a national search), and creation of a Public Relations Committee.  In March, Alesia McManus accepted the postion of Head of Science Library.

The committee reviewed the impact of the serials review/cancellations in the Spring-Summer of 2003.  There was a significant effect from the 2003-2004 agreement between SUNY central and Elsevier for it required no Elsevier titles to be cancelled in 2003 and 2004.   In the Spring of 2004, SUNY Library Directors and SUNY central met concerning issues with respect to on-going 2004+ negotiations with Elsevier.  These and other budget aspects of the Libraries were reviewed by the committee.

The Libraries and Graduate School will be requiring Electronic Theses via ProQuest in the Fall of 2004.     

 

Members of Faculty Senate Library Committee, Fall 2003-Spring 2004:

Miguel Arcones, Mathematics

Charles Burroughs, Director, CEMERS

Peter Gerhardstein, Psychology

Scott Handy, Chemistry

Gerald Kadish, History

Sara Maximiek, Libraries

Frank Mols, Libraries

Colleen Reardon, Music

Lindsey Krecko, SA representative

Ariel McNaney, SA representative

Charles Kanyi, GSO representative

Michael McGoff, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs

John Meador, Director of Libraries

Charles Nelson, Physics, Library Committee Chair


 

 

M E M O R A N D U M

 

 

Date:               May 5, 2004   

 

To:                  Faculty Senate

 

From:              Sandra D. Michael

                        Chair, Professional Standards Committee

 

Subject:           2003/2004 Annual Report

 

 

 

This academic year, the Committee completed deliberation on three cases.  For two cases, the parties were referred to more appropriate avenues for consideration. The Committee brought closure to one other case, and so notified all principals in the matter. 

 

Committee Members:  Profs. Miguel Arcones (Mathematics), Masha Britten (Nursing), Robert Carpenter (SEHD), and David Cingranelli (Political Science). 



Report of the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

2003-2004 Academic Year

 

In 2003-04, the UUCC continued its normal work certifying courses as meeting General Education requirements, monitoring the seats available in courses meeting these requirements, and dealing with student petitions. We also worked on implementing the new foreign language requirement and on allowing AP science courses to fulfill the science requirement under some circumstances. As in the past, Liz Abate provided invaluable administrative assistance for our committee.

Don Blake
Sungdai Cho
Richard Eckert
Wayne Jones
Stanley Masters, Chair
Joshua Price
Sara Reiter
Eunice Roe
Blenda Smith
Stephen Straight
Anna Tan-Wilson
J J Van Hoff

1 faculty vacancy from Fine Arts

1 undergraduate student vacancy

1 graduate student vacancy

  


                                                    


 

M E M O R A N D U M

 

 

DATE:             June 15, 2004

 

TO:                  Faculty Senate

 

FROM:            Mary Ann Swain, Chair

                        Academic Computing and Educational Technology Committee

 

SUBJECT:       2003-2004 ACET ANNUAL REPORT

 

 

Three major activities occupied ACET for the 2003-2004 academic year.  First, the Committee finished its work on drafting a new copyright policy statement.  Senior Staff had a favorable evaluation of the Committee’s recommendations.  Those recommendations will be integrated into a common policy statement available on the University’s Website.

 

Second, the Committee invited a number of faculty to join Committee members in a brainstorming session about the future of academic computing on campus.  The purpose of the session was to generate ideas about how to leverage technology to advance the University’s instructional, research, and service missions in the future.  The information from that activity will be considered by the Council in the year to come.

Third, the Subcommittee on Educational Technology conducted a study of faculty satisfaction with educational technology on campus and to inform recommendations about changes needed in the technology environment at Binghamton.  Their report was received at the Committee’s final meeting in April.  Its recommendations will be considered by ACET in the year to come.

 

In sum, the committee devoted a considerable part of this year to wide ranging discussions about opportunities in evolving technology and campus needs.  A good foundation for important discussions about strategic directions for academic computing has been built.

Committee members included:

 
 


Mary Ann Swain, Chair

Stephen Gilje

Jeffrey Barker

Surinder Kahai

Sandra Card

Ravikumar Makam (student)

Sungdai Cho

Richard Pastore

Steven Dickman

Jordan Peck (student)

Jeff Donahue

Mark Reed

Tony Ferrara

James Wolf

Kanad Ghose

Mark Zhang


 

COMMITTEE ON THE UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT

ANNUAL REPORT 2003-2004

 

            The Committee, newly constituted as a joint faculty senate-administration committee, held 7 meetings this year.  Active members included Herbert Bix, Don Brister, Peter Knuepfer, Tom McDonough, Julian Shepherd (Chair), Ted Swetz, John Titus, Deanne Westerman (faculty members), Tony Ferrara (Vice Chair), Juliet Berling (environmental ombudsperson), Rene Coderre (residential life), Pearse Murray (physical plant), Lee Nesslage (professional staff), Kristin Kraseski (spring only), Kate Sabato (fall only) and Laurie Wheelock  (undergraduate students), Jeff Bohner (graduate student), and Wayne Jones (consultant).

 

            Our major business this year included (1) finalization of the Campus Environmental Policy, (2) review of the Site Improvement Plan, (3) pesticide and salt use on campus, and (4) review of alternative means of transportation to, on, and from Campus, and (5) use of the Nature Preserve.

 

1.       Campus Environmental Policy.  After fitful preparation over the last 10 years, an environmental policy, a one-page document of environmental goals for the Campus, was approved by CUE and the Administration, and signed at an Earth Day ceremony by the President of BU, the chair of CUE, and the chairs of the Student Environmental Action Coalition.

 

2.       Site Improvements Plan.  A final plan, prepared by outside consultants, for the improvement of the outside environment of all of the inner part of the Campus (the “Brain”), was presented to the Committee by the Vice Chair.  The Vice Chair said the plan would be executed as funds and opportunities for renovation arose.

 

3.       Pesticide and Salt Use on Campus.  CUE received and reviewed the annual proposal for pesticide use from the Physical Plant.  In response to renewed complaints that the salt policy was not being followed, CUE asked again that the policy be observed – the Vice Chair said he would speak with the Director of Physical Facilities about this.

 

4.       Transportation to and on Campus.  With representatives of the BU Parking Committee, the BU Transportation Committee, the Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study, and the NYS Dept of Transportation, CUE reviewed alternatives to use of private cars for transportation to, on and from Campus.  Plans for improved bicycle, pedestrian, and bus access were discussed – recommendations for action were deferred until further consideration by the 2004-2005 Committee.

 

5. Use of the Natural Areas and the Nature Preserve, CUE received a report on improvements to the Nature Preserve, including a new website and new signboards, effected by a team of 4 undergraduate honors students mentored by Prof. R. Andrus.  The Committee approved two proposals involving biological and hydrological research/teaching in the Preserve.

 

 

 

 


 

Memorandum

 

Date:                5 May, 2004

To:                   Faculty Senate

From:               Les Lander, Chair of Committee on Committees

Subject:            Annual Report of the Committee on Committees

 

 

The members of the Committee on Committees are:

 

Brister, Donald, Library Services

Burch, Beth, SEHD, Division Of Education

Chatterji, Manas, SOM

Conlon, Michael, English

Lander, Les, Computer Science, Chair

Stewart Fahs, Pamela, DSON

Tucker, Libby, English

 

The Committee on Committees met twice in person during the academic year 2003-04 and communicated extensively among themselves via email and telephone. All vacancies on Faculty Senate committees were filled, in large part thanks to the willingness of existing members to continue their committee memberships. We also gave the administration a name of a faculty representative for the committee that reviews candidates for the Award for Excellence in Faculty Service.



DATE:                        May 10, 2004

 

TO:                             The Faculty Senate

 

FROM:                       Evaluation Coordinating Committee,

                                    Susan Strehle, Chair

 

SUBJECT:                 Report, 2003-2004

 

The committee met once in the fall semester and several times in the spring semester to fulfill its charge. It designated a senior administrator to evaluate and began communications with that person. In subsequent discussions with Faculty Senate leadership, however, it became clear that the administrator chosen did not have the sort of campus-wide academic program responsibilities that would make the evaluation a worthwhile process for the faculty. 

 

The committee concluded that the instructions to the committee and the list of eligible administrators needed to be updated in light of the resolutions passed by the Senate in 1996-97.  The committee drafted and forwarded to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee a document updating the suggested procedures for the committee and, with Kathy Bowman’s able assistance, updated the list of “Academic Officers to be Evaluated.”  The removal of several names and positions will enable future committees to avoid the problems encountered this year.  The new document, “Guidelines and Suggested Procedures for the ECC,” also gives updated guidance regarding the process.

 

By the point in the spring when the committee had clarified the appropriate list of senior administrators, insufficient time remained for an evaluation.

 

 

 

Committee membership, 2003-2004:

Susan Strehle, English, Chair

Janet Ambrogne, Decker School of Nursing

Susan Bane, Chemistry

Elizabeth Brown, Libraries

Robert Carpenter, School of Education and Human Development

Manas Chatterji, School of Management

Philip Kraft, Sociology

Eileen Way, Systems Science and Industrial Engineering

--------------------------------------------

 

Faculty Senate Evaluation Coordinating Committee

Guidelines and Suggested Procedures for the ECC

(2004)

Approved by Faculty Senate Executive Committee on 4/20/2004

 

At its first meeting, the committee decides which senior administrator to evaluate.  The list of eligible administrators is defined in two documents:  the 1994 “structure and procedures” and the 1996-97 “resolutions.”  With the evolution of position titles and responsibilities, the ECC needs to review the list of those senior administrators “who have significant responsibilities involving them in the academic program.”  The ECC believes that these currently include, but are not limited to, the President, the Provost, the Vice President for Research, the Deans, the Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, the Director of Libraries, the Director of HPEA, the Associate Vice President for Computing and Educational Technology, and the Director of Continuing Education and Summer Programs. 

 

In evaluating a Dean, see the 1996-97 resolutions:  “When the natural faculty constituency of an administrator is the faculty of one college, the evaluation shall be organized where possible by the faculty of that college, with the ECC playing a coordinating role.  In the case of Harpur College of Arts and Sciences, the ECC shall convene a meeting of the Faculty Senators from that college and request them to elect a committee consisting of faculty of that college or organize the evaluation.”

 

The ECC elects a chair at its first meeting.  The chair informs the administrator being evaluated and requests documentation.  Materials may include a job description, a condensed resume, and a narrative self-evaluation guided by the areas to be evaluated.  This information will be shared with the faculty in a general evaluation or with the department evaluating committees in a college evaluation.  The ECC may also review other documentation relative to the evaluation; it may solicit data from other academic administrators and appropriate external sources.

 

The ECC designs a questionnaire for general evaluations based on models in the Faculty Senate files and on the instrument (adapted from Miller et al) in the 1994 “structure and procedures.” The questionnaire is sent to the natural faculty constituency of the administrator.

 

The ECC will collect reports from all individuals in a general evaluation and from all department evaluation committees in a college evaluation.  The ECC will compile all reports into a final report, which will contain:

  1. a summary of the process used to generate the report
  2. a summary of all department evaluation committee reports where applicable
  3. a sum total of the faculty vote for and against renewal, where appropriate.

The report will not include individual department evaluation committee reports or specific references to departments, units, or individual writers.  When it includes quotations from written comments, the writer’s anonymity will be protected.  All reports remain confidential. 

 

The ECC report is forwarded to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, to the administrator being evaluated, and to that person’s immediate supervisor. The administrator may submit commentary in response to the ECC, including reports solicited by the administrator from within or outside the university.  The ECC will forward these commentaries to all recipients of its original report. 

 

When an administrator who was evaluated leaves the university, the Faculty Senate secretary shreds that person's evaluation.

 

The ECC has no other responsibilities. 



 

Ad Hoc Committee on the Quality of Teaching at Binghamton University

September 14, 2004

Chair:  Randall H. McGuire, Professor of Anthropology

 

            The Ad Hoc Committee on the Quality of Teaching at Binghamton University was charged by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee in the spring of 2002 to consider and propose ways to improve the quality of teaching at the university.  To this end the committee achieved two goals for the 2002-2003 academic year.  The first of these was to prepare a Statement of Educational Goals, Principles and Responsibilities At Binghamton University that would serve as a guide for the faculty senate in making decisions concerning education at Binghamton University.  The second goal was to prepare a Statement of Effective Teaching and Principles that could be used to help faculty recognize, develop, and affirm good teaching on campus.  In 2003-2004 the committee revised these documents and received Faculty Senate approval of them.

 

The committee met several times a month for both the fall semester of 2003 and the spring semester of 2004.  The committee revised a Statement of Educational Goals, Principles and Responsibilities At Binghamton University.  The Faculty Senate revised and adopted this statement on January 27, 2004.  The document has been added to the Handbook for Faculty and Staff.  A copy of the document as modified by the Senate follows this report.

 

The committee revised the draft Statement of Effective Teaching Principles prepared in the Spring of 2004.  The Faculty Senate Executive Committee revised this document on February 24, 2004.  The Faculty Senate this statement on May 4, 2004.  The document has been added to the Handbook for Faculty and Staff.  A copy of the document as modified by the Senate follows this report.

 

The members of the Committee were:

Barker, Jeff                  Geology

Blake, Donald              Harpur Dean's Office

Britten, Masha              Nursing

Jayatilaka, Bandula       SHED

Conlon, Mike               Presidential Scholar's Program

Hogan, Janet                Library

Iwobi, Margaret           Watson School

Janet Wilson                 Physical Education       

McGuire, Randall       Anthropology

Reiter, Sara                  Management

Rosenberg, Liz English

Tricomi, Al                   Center for Learning and Teaching

Lickstein, Steven          Student Association Representative

---------------------------------------

The following paragraph was added by the Faculty Senate on May 4, 2004:

 

Background:

 

The State University of New York operates within a framework of federal and state laws, the enacted Policies of the Board of Trustees, and a number of negotiated collective bargaining agreements.  Nothing that follows should be construed as superseding these laws, Policies, and agreements.  The Board of Trustees has delegated to faculty within the State University of New York the responsibility “for the conduct of the university’s instruction, research and service programs.” [Article VI, ¶3]  The aim of this document is to guide faculty, staff and administrators in fulfilling their shared responsibilities for providing high quality undergraduate education.

 

 

Statement of

Goals, Principles and Responsibilities for Undergraduate Education

At Binghamton University

Revised and Adopted by Faculty Senate on January 27, 2004 for insertion in the Handbook for Faculty and Professional Staff

 

 

Rationale:

Binghamton University students represent some of the best and brightest in the state.  The mission of Binghamton must be to provide the best possible education for all students.  This mission of Binghamton University entails both significant scholarship and engaged undergraduate teaching.  This mission requires research that advances knowledge through discovery, scholarship, and creative work and using both that knowledge and that process to educate our students. The Faculty has a deep and abiding responsibility for the education of our students.  The Faculty Senate is responsible for upholding the goals, principles, and standards of the University's academic mission.  In times of fiscal constraint and in times of abundance, the University must keep these goals, principles, and standards firmly in mind.  To guide the Institution in the making of future decisions, the Faculty Senate endorses the following Statement.

 

I.  Goals of a University Education:

 

Liberal Arts Core – preparation for a life of learning, higher order critical and analytical abilities, to enhance the self-development of students so that they will become informed and effective participants in public affairs and in all of their subsequent educational and professional pursuits, the interpretive ability to apply learned skills to subject matter.

 

Acquisition of Skills – academic skills necessary for rational discourse, written and oral communication for all. Skills are normally supplemented by particular kinds of competence - mathematic, linguistic and the like - as required by individual fields of study.

 

Substantive Knowledge – Major study and professional programs to prepare students for future study, professional development, and careers.

 


II.  Responsibilities for Quality Education at Binghamton University:

 

A.  Responsibilities of the Faculty for these goals: The faculty as a group bears the primary responsibility and authority for the education of students.  The faculty includes, the President, the Provost, and all faculty members having academic rank1.

 

The Faculty will:

  1. Determine the curriculum for all academic units.  
  2. Design curricula that both reflect the standards of their discipline and are responsive to the academic needs of their students.
  3. Set and maintain the academic standards required of the students.
  4. Have the ultimate responsibility for the academic evaluation of students.
  5. Establish guidelines within Departments or Schools concerning the quantity and quality of adjunct teaching, while establishing the realms within which adjunct teaching is preferred.
  6. Formally train, and regularly supervise, and evaluate undergraduate peer instructors.  Faculty will appoint only undergraduate peer instructors who have strong academic records and who demonstrate an outstanding command of the subject that they will help other students learn.
  7. Develop educational programs to align the curriculum with societal needs and evolving knowledge.
  8. Engage in scholarship, research and other creative activities to contribute to their fields of study, to deepen their understanding of their field, and to bring the creation of new knowledge to the classroom.
  9. Be responsible for communicating the curriculum to the students.  Good teaching requires Faculty to critically reflect on their pedagogy and utilize peer review, student opinion, and other sources to illuminate and challenge their classroom skills.
  10. Oversee the progress of their students and certify the awarding of academic degrees.
  11. Participate in academic advising.

 

B.  Responsibilities of Institution for these goals: Institutional responsibilities are realized through the cooperative efforts of the faculty and the administration to accomplish the mission of the university. The University, in carrying out its Mission as a Research University committed to excellence in teaching and in research and creative endeavors, recognizes and values excellence in teaching

.

   The Institution will:

  1. Recruit and hire academic rank faculty gifted in teaching and committed to student learning.
  2. Supervise and review Departmental or School guidelines concerning adjunct teaching.
  3. Develop criteria for the role, selection, supervision, and evaluation of undergraduate peer instructors.
  4. Provide resources to promote and facilitate undergraduate participation in faculty research.
  5. Ensure that students have access to sufficient classes in order to complete their undergraduate degree requirements in a timely manner (usually four years for entering freshmen).
  6. Evaluate teaching excellence in the promotion and tenure process and promote teaching excellence through incentives and meaningful rewards.
  7. Provide students with the advising that they need to gain their degrees and allocate resources so that faculty have sufficient time to advise and mentor students
  8. Provide resources for faculty development to support teaching in the form of curriculum development grants, workshops on teaching, travel, sabbatical leave, etc.
  9. Support research on, and the assessment of, teaching effectiveness.
  10. Provide competitive graduate teaching assistant stipends to improve recruitment of excellent graduate students.
  11. Support the professional development, supervision and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate teaching assistants to train the next generation of university teachers.
  12. Provide the state of the art facilities that the faculty need to support excellence in teaching and learning (classrooms, laboratories, library and computer resources that contain the appropriate technologies to support classroom teaching).
  13. Provide appropriate compensation and support to adjunct faculty for the performance of their responsibilities in support of the Departmental or School mission.

 

C.  Responsibilities of the Graduate Teaching Assistants for these goals:  The primary responsibility of all graduate students is to complete their degree in a timely fashion.  As part of their career development they should be called upon to take teaching duties.  As scholars in training they need the support of the faculty and the institution to meet their responsibilities. 

 

Graduate Teaching Assistants will:

1.       Teach small groups of undergraduates under supervision of faculty. Faculty should provide regular mentoring on teaching skills, general communication skills, and subject matter.

2.       Develop teaching skills and qualifications to take on increased responsibilities. The University should provide opportunities for teaching development, including ESL classes, where appropriate, and should reward excellent teaching by TAs.

3.       Carry out aspects of teaching specific to small groups with high interaction: stimulate discussion, promote learning by inquiry, and teach oral and written communication skills via individual interaction with students.

4.       Become familiar with and use technology appropriate to their teaching role.

5.       Give thoughtful feedback and evaluation of students' work, maintaining standards set by supervising faculty.

 

Faculty will ensure that:

1.   Teaching loads should allow time for TA's to do a quality job of teaching while also developing further teaching skills and pursuing their own studies.

2.   Teaching assignments should always be within the scope of the TA's current academic and teaching qualifications. TA's should receive more challenging teaching assignments as their own studies progress. It is not always appropriate for graduate students to be teaching in their first year of graduate studies.

 

III.  Principles for Quality Education at Binghamton University: These principles provide a road map for the faculty to fulfill their responsibilities and for the University to provide the learning environment in which students can meet the goals of a university education.

 

A.  The academic rank1 faculty has the responsible for and the authority over the design and delivery of the curriculum.

  1. Faculty should teach the majority of general education classes taken by each student
  2. Faculty should teach all courses in the major unless specific circumstances make an adjunct with specialized knowledge preferable.
  3. Faculty should supervise the content and delivery of courses taught by qualified academic rank faculty2 (lecturers, adjunct faculty, and graduate students) and should take an active role in helping these individuals deliver a quality curriculum.
  4. Faculty should afford regular opportunity for students to discuss course material and other curricular issues, and include this in the design and delivery of the curriculum.
  5. Faculty should incorporate current research and creative activity in their discipline in curriculum development and delivery.  Similarly, classroom discussion and student research should contribute to faculty members’ research.
  6. Faculty should be innovative in the delivery of curriculum and retain responsibility and control of the curriculum through out the process of delivery.

 

B.  Class size and organization will be determined by the needs of the students and be appropriate to the knowledge, level, intellectual abilities, and skills being taught.

1.       Large lecture sections (100+) are appropriate only for lower division, introductory courses.

2.       The student-teacher relationship is fundamental to education and students should be given the opportunity to take small classes (<25) with faculty at all levels of their education to develop this relationship.

3.       Small classes taught by faculty should make up a majority of a student’s upper division required major classes.

4.       Larger classes should include sub-sections that meet in smaller groups to emphasize more individualized instruction.

5.       Students should be exposed to a variety of pedagogies (lecture based, collaborative learning, etc.) both to serve the interests of different learning styles and to teach them how to adapt to different learning situations.

6.       Skills courses that require a high degree of interaction between the instructor and the student, such as composition, oral communication, and foreign language courses, should be no larger than 25 students in size.

 

C.  The University will actively maintain, support, and develop high quality teaching.

1.       The Faculty will develop means for effectively and objectively evaluating teaching.

2.       Faculty are urged to seek regular student evaluations of their courses and teaching.

3.       The university will institute a clearly articulated reward system for faculty teaching at all levels.

4.       Graduate students will be trained as teachers before entering the classroom and be evaluated and mentored by faculty once they are in the classroom.

5.       All instructors, including Faculty, TAs, and adjuncts (outside of foreign language courses) must be able to effectively communicate in English.  The university must establish standards and provide resources to meet this goal.

6.       Evaluation of students should be rigorous, fair and clearly explained to the student.

 

D.  The University experience should be structured to meet the needs of the student and to guide the intellectual development of the student building step by step towards the goals of a university education.

1.       Students need to have authoritative and accessible advising at all stages of their education

2.       Students should have the opportunity to enter into a mentor relationship with a faculty member during their education.

3.       Students should develop their substantive interests in depth and thus upper-division course work should make up half of the degree.

4.       Academic skills must be both explicitly taught and integrated in substantive course work.

5.       Major programs should culminate in a capstone course, broadening, deepening and integrating the total experience of the major.

6.       Students should be prepared to live in a cosmopolitan world.  The University, therefore, should encourage international exchange, study abroad, and languages across the curriculum programs.

 

E.  A research university provides students with a unique opportunity for learning based in research, scholarship, and creative activities.

1.       Faculty are encouraged to include students in their scholarly and creative endeavors and to seek appropriate grant funding for this purpose.

2.       Whenever appropriate, courses at all levels should include research or creative activities.

3.       Internship opportunities should be widely available

4.       Students should be encouraged and guided on how to present the results of their activities to the academy, their profession, or the public as appropriate

5.       Students should be encouraged to take on honors theses and BFA exhibits.

 

F.  A Liberal Education thrives when a sense of community is cultivated.

1.       The University should encourage and facilitate faculty-student interaction outside the classroom.

2.       Since knowledge is rarely developed in isolation, all Departments and Schools are encouraged to invite speakers from other universities and to encourage interdisciplinary cooperation.  The University should provide facilities for visiting scholars and conferences hosted on campus.

3.       The integration of learning and living environments is valuable to student learning.  The Faculty Masters program, student interest housing, and the Discovery program are examples of initiatives that should be encouraged and expanded.

4.       The University plays an important role in the community, and should encourage volunteerism, community activism, business development, knowledge transfer, and participation in the arts by students, faculty and staff.

5.       We are part of a global community.  Therefore the University should encourage, support, and provide resources for international faculty and student exchanges.

 

 

1           Academic rank faculty are defined in the State University of New York Policies of the Board of Trustees (2001) as those with “titles of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor and assistant instructor”, and “members of the professional staff having titles of librarian, associate librarian, senior assistant librarian and assistant librarian”.

2           Qualified academic rank faculty, defined in the State University of New York Policies of the Board of Trustees (2001) include those with “titles of lecturer, or titles of academic rank preceded by the designations 'clinical' or 'visiting' or other similar designations”.

------------------------------------------------------------  

Guiding Principles and Practices of Effective Teaching

Revised by Faculty Senate Executive Committee on February 24, 2004

Adopted by Faculty Senate on May 4, 2004 for insertion in Handbook for Faculty and Professional Staff

 

 

 

Statement of Purpose:

          Teaching is part of Binghamton University’s core mission, whether it be in the context of undergraduate or graduate education, mentoring, or any of the other myriad ways that faculty interact with students.  Our students challenge us as a faculty to foster a rich and diverse learning environment. To this end, the Faculty Senate endorses the following eight guiding principles of teaching and learning and encourages the individual schools and departments to develop complementary sets of principles and practices that better reflect their specific mission.

 

The faculty member:

 

Principle 1. Sets clear goals and intellectual challenges for student learning

Examples of effective practices:

Principle 2. Employs teaching methods and strategies that actively involve students

Examples of effective practices:

Principle 3. Communicates and interacts effectively with students

Examples of effective practices:

Principle 4. Attends to the intellectual and social growth of students

Examples of effective practices:

Principle 5. Respects the diverse talents and learning styles of students

Examples of effective practices:

Principle 6. Encourages learning beyond the classroom

Examples of effective practices:

Principle 7. Reflects on, monitors and improves teaching philosophy and practices

Examples of effective practices:

Principle 8.  Integrates teaching and learning with research, scholarship, and creative activities

Examples of effective practices:

·         uses student learning experiences to stimulate research, scholarship and creative activities

·         uses research, scholarship and creative activities to enhance teaching and to foster student research

·         uses research, scholarship or creative activities to constantly renew and energize student learning

·         involves students in faculty research, scholarship and creative activities and gives students appropriate recognition

·         collaborates with library faculty to help students develop the skills to locate, evaluate, and use information resources

 

 

In accepting these principles the Faculty Senate recognizes that the inventory of effective practices listed above should be dynamic and reflect changes in pedagogy.  It therefore authorizes the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to make changes in these lists as the Executive Committee sees appropriate.

 

Based on a similar set of principles developed at the University of British Columbia (http://www.tag.ubc.ca/facdev/services/appendixc.html ).

 



INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC BOARD

2003 –2004 Annual Report

 

            The Intercollegiate Athletic Board met twice during the 2003-2004 academic year.  Here are the minutes of those meetings. 

 

Intercollegiate Athletic Board

November 4 2003

 

 

 

Minutes from the March 5, 2003 meeting were reviewed and approved with no corrections. Introductions of members were made.

 

Review of IAB Function:

 

IAB Bylaws were distributed and reviewed. The function as outlined in Part III Duties state:

 

The Board shall conduct broad based reviews and gather information to enable it to advise the President on such matters:

 

a)      Standards and policies for student participation in intercollegiate athletics as not to conflict with the University’s mission, goals, objectives and practices;

 

b)      Planning the intercollegiate athletic [program to include considerations for Title 9/Gender Equity and NCAA Division I Legislation;

 

c)      Funding for intercollegiate athletics;

 

d)      Preparation of an Annual Report for the Intercollegiate Athletics Program to the President and Faculty Senate;

 

e)      Other matters referred by the President

 

 

A summary of the new Division 1 Academic Eligibility requirements was distributed and discussed (see attached). A change from a once a year review to a semesterly review has been instituted.

 

Certification for NCAA Division 1 begins in spring 2003. A steering committee will be created to work with the outside accreditation team. Currently the process is being reviewed and revised to simplify the process.

 

Academic Report

 

The Committee reviewed the Fall 2002/Spring 2003 academic report (see attached). One notable highlight is that the retention rate for BU’s student athletes is higher on average than that of the student body as a whole.

 

 

 

Budget Review

 

In light of the budget situation a recommendation was made to President DeFleur to discontinue the wrestling team after the fall2003/spring 2004 season. Wrestling is currently the only non American East sport at Binghamton. The department took a 5 ½ -6% base budget hit. This cut, combined with an increase in tuition (which affected scholarship) has had the effect of producing an almost $400,000 deficit. A savings of approximately $180,000 can be recouped by discontinuing. Less that 25% of Division I schools currently have wrestling programs

 

In addition to discontinuing the wrestling team, cuts include the elimination of Midnight Madness, the spring banquet, spring team trips and coaching conferences. The good news, if there is any, is that only 33% of the operating budget comes from state funds. The department is hoping that outside sources (e.g. fundraising, marketing, ticket sales) will help offset some of the dollars lost in the cuts.

 

Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (Faculty Senate)

 

This committee of the Faculty Senate reviews the impact that intercollegiate athletics has on academics. The committee’s membership consists of one Faculty Senate chair, three additional faculty members in addition to Joel Thirer and Dennis Lasser who serve as ex officio members. There was a brief discussion of the pros and cons of combining the faculty senate committee with the IAB. Consensus was that since SUNY Central mandates the existence of the IAB and given the currently philosophy of the faculty senate committee it would be better to maintain their status as two separate entities.

 

Events Center

 

Both the men and women’s basketball teams will be playing the final few games of their schedules in the Event Center even though the building will not be fully completed. The men’s team is slated to play January 25th against Stonybrook as the Events Center opener. We will be televising two games out of that arena,

February 25 against UMBC at 5pm and February 29 against Boston University at 12N.

 

Fall Sports Update

 

The men’s soccer team is the second seed in the playoffs. The first game is schedule at Binghamton for 1pm on Saturday November 8. The team is 10-2-6 and is the number one ranked defense in the country. The women’s soccer team placed seventh and are currently out of the tournament although they are hoping for a possibly ECAC bid.

 

------------------------------------------- 

IAB Minutes

March 4, 2004

 

 

NCAA Certification

 

The NCAA certification process has begun. NCAA regulations require an institutional review every 10 years. A committee of campus representatives has been appointed by the President. Michael McGoff is chairing the main committee. There are three subcommittees, Governance (Peter Knuepfer, chair), Academic Integrity (Donald Blake, chair) and Equity and Welfare (Jenny Schorr, chair). The groups will be meeting, gathering information and collecting data to be complied in a report due in August 2005. The main purpose of this report is to show a clear demonstration of the institutional control of athletics on campus. An initial site visit from Jay Jones, NCAA representative, will occur on March 29 and 30. Subcommittee reports will eventually be made available on-line to the entire campus community

 

Fall Academic Report

 

Mary Beth Lennox reported that 47 fall athletes made the AE honor roll with a GPA of 3.0 or better. Twenty five percent of this group had a 3.5 or above and six student-athletes had a perfect 4.0 gpa. Eight of the twenty one programs (42%) had an average team gpa above a 3.0. The overall average for our student-athletes was 2.996. This is the first time in eight or nine semester that the overall average fell below a 3.0. Only 4% of the students were below a 2.0 gpa and the majority of those students were first semester freshmen.

 

Team Reports

 

The Men’s basketball tournament begins in Boston on March 5. BU is the 5th seed and will be playing Maine. If the team wins we will play again on March 7th. The All Conference team will be named at noon on Friday. The championship game for the men is played on the following weekend at the site of the team with the higher seed.

 

The women have two games remaining versus Hartford and Vermont. One win will clinch them second place in the conference. The women’s tournament begins March 9th in Hartford with the semi’s being played on Friday of that week and the finals on Saturday.

 

The women’s swimming team finished 5th in the conference while the men’s team finished 2nd.  The wrestling team is traveling this weekend to the Colonial Athletic Wrestling championships. Men’s and Women’s track and field came in 6th in the last indoor championships. We have two indoor tracks meets scheduled with a dual meet in Albany coming up. The men’s and women’s tennis have already begun their seasons. The baseball and softball teams have been playing on the road. The first women’s home game is April 2.

 

We will be putting in a bid to host the AE Men’s basketball tournament here in March 2005. The process is subjective so it is difficult to tell whether we will be successful in our bid.

 

There is a Faculty Athletic representative meeting on March 5th. If any members have items that they wish Dennis Lasser to raise at the meeting, please call or e-mail him. One item that he will be discussing is partnering travel to try and minimize class time lost. The group will meet again in July.

 

Budget Preview

 

We don’t yet know if SUNY as an institution will take a base budget cut as they did this year. The athletic fee will be raised $10 per semester and we are hoping that increases in ticket sales will help offset some budget problems. Even with elimination of the wrestling program, the Athletic department will be carrying over a deficit into the next year. In order to save money here will be no spring trips for baseball and softball. The governor’s budget is flat but we will need to wait and see what budget is actually passed before we can really assess the situation in the department for the next year.

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:35

 

 

 

 

Matt Bassett, Associate Director of Athletics (ex officio without vote)

Mary Beth Lennox, Asst. Director of Athletics (ex officio without vote)

Jordan Allen, student male athlete (2003-2004)

Neil Rose, Alumnus (2003-2004)

President Student Association (ex officio) (2003-04)

Nicole Mendolera, student female athletic rep (2003-2004)

Dennis Lasser, SOM, Faculty rep to the NCAA (Chair) (ex officio)

Steve Dickman, Geology (2003-05)

Leslie Haywood, English (2003-05)

Financial Vice President, Student Association (ex officio)

Jamie Boyer, student at-large rep (2003-2004)

Norman Spear, Psychology (2003-05)

Anthony Ferrara, Vice President of Administration (ex officio)

Joel Thirer, Director, PERA (ex officio without vote)

Sandra Michael, Biology (2003-2005)

Jill Seymour, SEHD (2003-2005)