• Bylaws, Charter,
  Standing Orders
• Faculty/Staff Handbook
• Senators
• Committees
• Meeting Schedules
• Minutes
• Resolutions
• Other Documents,
  Presentations

Faculty Senate

Minutes of February 3, 2009
(unapproved)

The Faculty Senate met at 2:00 PM on February 3, 2009 at the Center for Tomorrow to discuss the following agenda:
1. Approval of the minutes of December 2, 2008
2. Report of the Chair
3. Update on Financial Management Advisory Group – Scott Nostaja, Interim Vice President for Human Resources and Chief of Staff
4. Economic Growth & Regional Competiveness for WNY – Ryan Mcpherson,
Associate Vice President for Government & Community Relations
5.  Resolution on UB2020
6.         William H. Baumer, Chair, Faculty Senate Grading Committee
Course Repetition Policy
Course Enrollment Control Policy
Program Honors Policy – Amendment
7. Old/New Business
8. Adjournment
Item 1. Approval of the minutes of December 2, 2008

The minutes were unanimously approved.

 

Item 2: Report of the Chair

1.         The 1st Faculty Senate Outreach Committee met in December. Dr. Hoeing who is serving as the committee’s temporary chair, will be calling another meeting soon.
2.         The Teaching & Learning committee which has been fairly inactive for the last 2 years now has a new chair Dr. Stevens from Anthropology
3.         Chair Hoeing forwarded the Prof. Lyon’s Writing Center proposal to Prof. Ken Takeuchi and the Educational Programs and Policies Committee for consideration and comments. He will also send it to the Teaching & Learning committee that is meeting tomorrow. 
4.         The Chair gave everyone advanced notice of our 2009 Celebration of Academic Excellence, to be held on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, in the Center for the Arts (on the same day as the next scheduled FS meeting which may have to be moved). He encouraged senators to attend and help honor their colleagues. He listed the UB faculty and staff to be honored at the event, including
a.         9 SUNY Distinguished Professors;
b.         2 SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professors;
c.         6 SUNY Chancellor’s Awards for Excellence in Teaching;
d.         3 SUNY Chancellor’s Awards for Excellence in Scholarship and Creative Activities;
e.         1 SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Faculty Service;
f.          3 SUNY Chancellor’s Awards for Excellence in Librarianship; and
g.         5 SUNY Chancellor’s Awards for Excellence in Professional Service.
5.         There will be no March meeting of the FS
6.         The President and Provost are in India.
7.         The University-Wide Financial Management Advisory Group was reconvened to receive an update on the bleak budget situation. The Group will meet more often in late February and March to propose and discuss specific actions the University will need to take in response to the budget situation.

Item 3. Update on Financial Management Advisory Group – Scott Nostaja, Interim Vice President for Human Resources and Chief of Staff

Interim VP Nostaja, who is also a member of the Financial Management Advisory Committee, began his presentation by revisiting the budget developments that occurred in 2008 and outlining the resulting challenges UB is facing today. He reminded senators how in Summer 2008, in response to the downturn in NY and US economies and the attending reduction in NY tax revenues, governor Paterson ordered all state agencies to reduce their budgets (SUNY by $96 million). As far as UB was concerned, this let to a 7% budget cut (= $14.5 million) in August 2008 on top of the 3.35% (=$6 million) in May 2008.

UB’s response was twofold, Nostaja explained. The initial cut was treated as an isolated event and was applied evenly across all unit of the campus with each unit developing specific plans for managing the reduction. These cuts were achieved largely through reductions in OTPs (expenses in the budget that are not people related) with some slowdown in non-essential hiring. The 7% required a more strategic and comprehensive response however. As a result, the Provost formed the Financial Management Advisory Group whose role was to come up with suggestions and ideas. The group did not look at particular budgets at finite details of any unit’s budget, VP Nostaja stated, but it looked at where there would be opportunities for savings. Deans and VPs were convened for similar strategic ideas, and finally, every faculty, staff, member of the community was solicited to come up with ideas to save money: 1700 responses were received online that were consistent with the # of themes with which the deans and VPs have been coming up. Several principles emerged from the input received, Nostaja said:
-make selective and strategic decisions
-enhance the quality of the UB educational experience
-enhance UB’s scholarly and creative capacities
-Create efficiencies and cost reductions through organizational restructuring: eg. IT, food and dining operations, housing, etc
-Expand and diversify revenue streams

The Interim VP then listed the cost reduction and revenue enhancement strategies UB devised:
-moratorium on all hires (limited exceptions) and on all expenditures in exceess of $5000 campus has held off on about 300 hires.
- cost reductions through restructurings and reorganizations (currently exploring IT and development)
-Pursue various unit specific cost reduction plans (mergers of programs)
-increase efficiency in FSA and Housing to enhance revenues (projected $3million returned this year)
-expand summer session opportunities to increase revenues
-use central funds to absorb half the cuts and distribute the balance of the cuts on a differential basis across campus units (less to academic units).

Nostaja then went on to address new developments that took place in January 2009, i.e. when the Governor proposed new cuts to UB and SUNY. Nostaja pointed out that these cuts have a disproportionately negative impact on research universities. The proposal:
-proposes to increase tuition by $600 but directs 80% of the new revenue into State’s general fund which sets new and dangerous precedent, Nostaja said.
-proposes a tax on all funds generated by the campus for research take 10%
-proposes a permanent tax on campus held IFR reserves
-proposes to offset 80% of professional program tuition income
-proposes to raise graduate tuition by 21% but retains 80 of income and reduces tuition scholarship funds by 15%
-proposes reductions in various programs

Nostaja summarized the impact of the proposal on the campus:
Additions to UB budget $3.7 million
Tuition revenue 20%
OTPS inflation 0.6 million

Reductions to the budget 15.3 million
RF tithe 2.3 million
IFR reserves 7.0 million
U-wide programs 6 million

This means an overall $11.6M cut for UB

The Campus, Nostaja said, has taken the following actions in response to the Governor’s proposal:
- aggressively pursue passage of UB 2020 legislation since any budget proposed by governor is in conversation with legislature
- reconvene the Financial Management Advisory Group
- accelerate restructuring and reorganization efforts
- consider and develop new approaches for future cost reduction scenarios

In response to a request by a senator, Nostaja offered to make the presentation available to members of the FS. Chair Hoeing said he would post the powerpoint presentation on the FS website for easy access. Professor Churchill asked to what extent the decrease of the value of the Endowment Fund affects UB. Nostaja predicted that in light of the $100 million hit that has been mentioned, this would have a long-term rather than short-term impact on UB. Albert Titus from Electrical Engineering asked about the set of funds the state gives to private universities and whether there was any talk of cutting these at all. Nostaja responded that President Simpson was a strong advocate for the state to reduce those. In light of the current budget situation, it is inappropriate for private institutions to receive a significant amount of money from the state, he said, and fortunately, the governor has finally started moving in the right direction about this issue. Professor Campbell suggested that since it may not be possible to deal with all the issues involved, maybe focusing on the scheming of the tuition money would put UB in a better position. The governor’s proposal amounted to the equivalent of a 500% sales tax on tuition, he said, and putting it in these terms may jolt people into action.

 

Item 4: Economic Growth & Regional Competiveness for WNY – Ryan Mcpherson, Associate Vice President for Government & Community Relations

Ryan McPherson outlined the vision in which UB 2020’s message is framed to external constituencies:
-potential to make a successful transition to a knowledge based economy.
-Provide job and career opportunities to our community, retain population
-enhance minority participation in the new economy, create jobs and businesses
-How? Build on the presence of a major research university UB by achieving UB2020 to help pull the economy forward

The Associate VP then listed the benefits of achieving the UB 2020 plan for WNY:
·         Economic impact of UB will increase to 3.6B from 1.7B from the full implementation of UB2020 plan
·         Over 10,000 net new long-term jobs in WNY
·         UB generated revenues more than double
·         15,000 students faculty and staff working and studying in the city of buffalo
·         UB2020’s physical build out will contribute 6,000-11,000 direct construction and indirect (state-, research-driven) jobs annually
·         NYS gains a return on investment of $4 for $1 invested by the state on UB20202
McPherson added that UB’s reforms propose that UB can Fund up to 85% of new operating costs ($250M) through a:
      Rational 4-6% tuition increase each year
      Growing student base
Efficiency initiatives saving 20-30M
Fund up to 67% of start-up costs (150M)
Fund up to 40% of total capital costs

He further emphasized that the way to get this agenda implemented is through an integrated advocacy approach. The old model tended to focus exclusively on a political strategy, McPherson said, whereas over the last few years, a holistic approach has been adopted that includes: Grassroots advocacy (UB Believers); the enactment of public policy; Public relations; coalition-building, as well as the more traditional political approach.

McPherson then outlined the SUNY and UB Reform agenda which include:
·         Management and Operational Reform: replacing NY’s outdated and inefficient regulations governing UB will create a level playing field with other state systems and public research universities, he said.
·         Access to Market Capital: providing UB with this authority, McPherson explained, will allow it to build critical research and campus-life facilities – residential, commercial, and recreational-on multiple tracks in accelerated time frames
·         Public Private Partnerships: by providing UB with the authority to create agreements with private partners for use of its lands and facilities.
·         Rational Tuition policy: move away from the “tuition roulette” approach, make it predictable, differential for differentiated cost, financing excellence and growth, 20% invested for need based aid
McPherson concluded his presentation by emphasizing the support that the UB2020 agenda has already garnered in the community. For instance, the Buffalo News has really embraced UB2020 as evidenced by the series of editorials that appeared to that effect. Various community partners have also joined UB in its efforts and endorsed UB’s mission of “Innovation, revitalization and Job creation.” The Associate VP also mentioned the WNY delegation meeting in December 2008, “one of the most successful one we have ever had,” he said and where the delegation showed overwhelming support for UB’s WNY Redevelopment Act. The Senate Majority leader Malcolm Smith was also very receptive and “pledged his initial support for our legislation,” McPherson added. What is more, the governor mentioned his support for the Biosciences in Buffalo in his State of the State Address on January 7, 2009 which shows that UB is on his mind. In the State of the City Address, the mayor was also “chiming in” about the university, McPherson reported.

This legislation “is about taking control of our university from Albany so we can make decisions in partnership with staff, faculty, etc,” McPherson said.

 

Item 5: Resolution on UB2020

The chair distributed a copy of a Faculty Resolution in support of President Simpson’s proposed policy changes incorporated in Bill 2020 and which the FSEC approved at its last meeting. The chair added that that the resolution is meant to support and add momentum to the considerable forces behind this proposal. Pushing these reforms through is critical not only to UB, but to SUNY as a whole, the chair emphasized. Hoeing moved to adopt this resolution; the motion was seconded, and the resolution was unanimously approved by the senators.

 

Item 6: William H. Baumer, Chair, Faculty Senate Grading Committee
Course Repetition Policy
Course Enrollment Control Policy
Program Honors Policy – Amendment

Professor Baumer first discussed the “course enrollment control policy” developed by the Grading Committee. This policy is new and was proposed so that academic units could better control enrollment in courses that are very highly stressed, Baumer explained. He added that the policy also places limits on the way that enrollment can be done and so constitutes protection for the student as well. At the present time, Baumer emphasized, without this policy, any department can declare that course is a closed course and there is nothing on the books to prevent them from doing that. “But we have serious problems in terms of courses where student demand is beyond any capacity we have,” Baumer said. The policy makes sure that first-time students get a shot and that repeating students (who currently take up 16% of the seats) don’t have as easy a time enrolling in these courses. The motion to adopt the policy passed unanimously.

The second policy, the “course repetition policy,” is an amendment of a policy that was previously adopted by the FS, Baumer explained. Currently, “a student could enroll, resign, enroll and keep on doing that,” Baumer said. This constitutes abuse in a couple of ways, he added: 1/ for the courses that are really impacted in terms of student demand, 2/ the student is really getting no guidance. The policy proposes modifying the present policy by incorporating Resignation and various grades and putting R “in the same bucket” as As, Bs, and Fs. With the new policy in place, there will be limits to the number of times a student can repeat. More than two repeats and the student will have to consult their advisor and have the permission of the department to repeat yet another time. This will also, Baumer emphasized, “get to the problem students who are stumbling around and don’t have the good sense of talking to an advisor.” The Proposal adds a paragraph, the second one in the policy to say that students may at most twice unilaterally enroll. Professor Baumer moved for the adoption of the amendment. Professor Titus asked whether the software allowed this to be done automatically. Baumer responded that the new student program will allow this as long as it is universal and the same rules apply for all grades and courses. Kara Saunders explained that the new system will be live in fall 2011, so this amendment will not have an immediate impact that would be able to be handled automatically till then. Baumer further clarified that while UB will not penalize students who overenrolled up to now, all students will be subjected to the new policy as of this coming fall. The motion to adopt the policy passed.

The third policy Professor Baumer discussed was the Program honors policy. He reminded the senators of the proposal last Spring that was adopted by the FS regarding honors. He explained that departments have had problems with the honors policy as it was adopted because some departments require students to do some kind of Honors Project on the basis of which student may be awarded honors. A problem arises when the Honors Activity isn’t quite as good as the GPA of the student or when at other times, it is significantly better than the GPA. The policy has now been set up so that student can get an Honors Award in accordance with the quality of the project. The proposal proposes, then, a double path: Awards can be won on the basis of the GPA or on the basis of an activity/project presuming it is evaluated by a faculty committee. If a student is to be a candidate, the minimum GPA remains 3.2, which matches the criteria for Latin Honors. The policy was unanimously approved.

 

Item 7: Old / New Business

 

Item 8: Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Carine Mardorossian, Secretary of the Faculty Senate