FACULTY SENATE
Minutes of February 23, 1999 - (approved)
E-MAIL: ZBFACSEN@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
The Faculty Senate met at 2:00 PM on February 23, 1999 in the Center for Tomorrow to consider the following agenda:
1. Approval of the Minutes of January 26, 1999
Item
1: Approval of the Minutes of January 26, 1999
The Minutes of January 26, 1999 were approved.
The Chair orally added the following remarks to his written report:
- academic regalia will be made available for faculty to purchase at a discount; don’t yet know prices; the sample gown displayed today is very handsome and uses UB’s hood
- asked the Secretary to report on the election for SUNY Senators; Professor Kramer announced that Professor Woodson and Professor Boot were elected to the two vacancies for SUNY Senator and Dr. Durand and Ms. Mancuso from the Professional Staff were elected as their alternates
- Professor Ram has offered a resolution of congratulations which states "The Faculty Senate at the University at Buffalo applauds and congratulates the accomplishments of two of our distinguished colleagues - Eli Ruckenstein, Department of Chemical Engineering, recipient of the 1998 National Medal of Science, and Robert Creeley, Department of English, recipient of the 1999 Bollingen Prize for Poetry;" the resolution was seconded and passed unanimously
Given the sweeping changes brought about within UB by the creation of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dean Grant deems it wise to continue the conversation with the Faculty Senate on the College, especially since some of the Senate’s standing committees may wish to raise issues or monitor the College’s development.
Dean Grant posed the question of whether the College was worth forming. He answered unequivocally yes, in its potential, although the campus acts day to day as if the College had not been formed. The campus wide budgetary planning exercise has put all assumptions about the development of the College into a fluid state. The formation of the College under its current budgetary condition would yield a net loss rather than an investment in undergraduate or graduate education.
Initially, the size and complexity of the College caused personnel and service strains. Now into the second semester, the College’s operations are beginning to approach expectations.
In matters of governance, the College has been guided by the Founders Committee which was impaneled to form the College. The Committee was appointed, not elected, and that has been the cause of some concern. In early March the entire College faculty will meet to consider draft Bylaws which will put into place the necessary and usual committee structure.
The College chose to retain the Promotion and Tenure Committees of the three former Faculties rather than creating a single new committee. Given the disparate cultures of the three Faculties, that has proven a very good decision.
There have been a number of changes in the units of the College. There are continuing talks about the arrangement of departments offering language and linguistics. In terms of majors, only Spanish has a strong graduate and undergraduate base of enrollment. Faculty in other languages are being underutilized, and finding satisfying career opportunities for them is a challenge. The merger of the School of Information and Library Science and the Department of Communications appears to be moving along. The placement of Computer Sciences in Engineering has isolated it from units of the Arts and Sciences that are dependent upon it for developing and maintaining a curriculum that will promulgate the merger of computer sciences with historic disciplines. The push is to graduate Liberal Arts majors who have a firm grounding in technology. Women’s Studies has developed to the point of emerging from American Studies into a free standing unit. Such a proposal, endorsed by the administration, will be going to the Academic Planning Committee. The Native American Studies unit is also being encouraged to redevelop itself to offer a two year program of Indigenous Peoples Studies, leading then into topics such as Native American Studies and perhaps an association with the Center for the Americas which is rapidly taking on life. American Studies now has only two half time faculty, and there is no intent to rebuild it as a Department. Letters have gone out to faculty with an interest in American issues, asking them to join a Graduate Group which will be responsible for the graduate students now in the program and for maintaining American Studies. Professor Guttman has accepted an appointment in the Department of Mathematics and will serve as a locus for our treatment of statistics. Canadian Studies is active and will be given infrastructure support within the College.
In summary the formation of the College was an idea whose correctness is evident in the early outcome. Because of financial pressures, the College has not completely developed a shared vision or a shared commitment and has not always achieved its potential. But as ambiguities are resolved, the College will develop a firm footing.
The Chair asked for questions:
- discuss issues of enrollment and the evening division of Millard Fillmore College which reports to you (Professor Welch)
- Millard Fillmore College doesn’t yet report to the Dean of Arts & Sciences; the most recent discussion of MFC would give Engineering, Management and Arts & Sciences responsibility for their own programs; this is an important issue because our part time enrollment, much of it attributable to MFC, has dropped precipitously; applications for the College of Arts & Sciences are strong, so if the yield is good, the incoming freshman class will be high in quantity and quality; continuing the Honors Scholarships into the second year should increase the profile of the class over the next several years (Dean Grant)
- compliment you on what seems to be a successful effort to begin bringing order into the chaos of the Arts & Sciences; to avoid problems in the future, foster strong, elective faculty governance (Professor George)
- the Provost’s Mission Review makes reference to displacing traditional "Mr. Chipsean" teaching; would you comment (Professor Swartz)
- no; the section of the report on research investment lacks any mention of the humanities, social sciences and the creative arts; these areas require the investment of time and some small sums of money; if investment is made only in the four areas enumerated in the report, UB’s NRC reputational ranking will plummet (Dean Grant)
- is it necessary to relocate library materials in statistics? (Professor Adams-Volpe)
- not clear how Professor Guttman’s move to the Mathematics Department will play out in the placement of courses; discussions about library material would be appropriate this summer (Dean Grant)
- what’s happening with graduate enrollment in the College? (Professor Bisson)
- since graduate applications are handled in departments, the College does not have consistent or detailed information; there has been a push by the College to help the departments realize the need for graduate students; the revived interest in Master’s programs may change the process in departments which until now saw the Master’s as a trial period for the Ph.D.; the "Mr. Chipsean" tutorial model of teaching can be sustained by making choices that offset its high cost, for example, clustering students in other areas and developing income and broad base in that way (Dean Grant)
The President began by giving an overview of the decline of enrollments in SUNY. The 1994/1995 year saw Governor Pataki propose a large decrease in state money for SUNY and substantially change the composition of the Board of Trustees; additionally there was speculation on the Governor’s relationship with SUNY. Seemingly as a direct consequence there was a precipitous decline in SUNY applications which have since remained at the lower level. Enrollments at the other three University Centers have rebounded, but not at UB.
UB has other unique problems. UB relies more heavily than the other Centers on part time and transfer students, and the enrollment in each of those segments has also declined. UB has been aggressive in the use of fees to fill funding gaps, and this has caused a cost differential between UB and the other Centers. Travel costs are also a substantial component of estimates of what it costs to attend UB. UB, up to two years ago, did not invest in promotional activities; we are now becoming much more aggressive in recruiting, contacting high school students in their junior year, mobilizing alumni, opening a New York City office, etc.
We are exploring bypassing the SUNY centralized admissions process which adds about a month to the time in which UB can respond to an application. While it appears UB is doing very well in undergraduate applications, our yield rate may be impacted by the lag in our response to applicants. Direct inquiries to UB Admissions are up 35%, which is also a sign that we may be turning the corner.
Transfer applications, however, remain low. Department chairs control the handling of transfer applications. The Provost and the Deans will be urging departments to be user friendly and aggressive in responding to these applications.
Graduate enrollment was the area in which we had the greatest shortfall. Provost Headrick, two years ago, suggested substantially increasing the Master’s component of UB’s graduate profile. Our faculty is best suited to upper division and graduate teaching, and there is a growing market for Master’s degrees not leading to the Ph.D. degree, and, at the same time, increasing pressure to admit fewer and better Ph.D. students supported with larger stipends. In the past departments have treated Ph.D. applications as the first order of business, undergraduate applications next, and Master’s applications last. We need to change those priorities. SUNY funding formulas make the most advantageous mix for UB a smaller number of elite undergraduates, a larger number of non-Ph.D. advanced students, and a small number of highly qualified Ph.D. students. That is also an attractive future for UB, one that retains our defining and distinctive research role. Urge faculty to take a look at existing Master’s programs and expand their enrollment where there are qualified applicants.
The Chair asked for questions:
- UB’s scheduling of the Jewish holidays will handicap recruitment efforts in the New York City/Long Island area (Professor Ram)
- we are in the same posture as Binghamton and Albany which also have travel considerations; will not revisit the schedule (President Greiner)
- do we follow up to see why people turn us down? (Professor George)
- good idea, but right now our priority is to entice people here; use contact groups on campus to get at what would make it easier to come to UB (President Greiner)
The Chair explained the iterative nature of the Mission Review document. Today is an opportunity for faculty comment on this version of the draft document. He then introduced Professor Welch, the Chair of the Academic Planning Committee. Professor Welch explained the work his Committee had done. The Committee looked at three different drafts in five meetings thus far. The first draft came in rough form for the Committee’s consideration only. The second draft was far more complete. The third draft is the one to which the Senate has access.
Professor Welch first offered general comments. The third draft is more focused and succinct than its predecessor drafts. It proposes substantial investment primarily in selected scientific and professional areas (molecular, biological and biomedical sciences, computer science and information technology, and environment and infrastructure). Focused, long term investment may be very important for UB’s future. On the other hand there are several areas, especially in the Arts & Sciences, which seem conspicuously absent and could be boosted in reputation and enrollment by relatively minor investment. The Committee is also concerned about Provost Triggle’s comments on institutional fluidity, noting that departmental boundaries should not be dissolved until some alternative structures are in place.
The document still lacks important components. There is not yet an executive summary, the appendices are not included, a concordance between the questions set by Albany and our response needs to be constructed, data tables need consistent bases, and the section on evaluating ourselves need to be added.
There are gaps between our response and the 37 questions set by Albany. This draft is limited in terms of performance indicators. There is very little attention to our General Education program for undergraduates. There is very little attention, except for Buffalo State College, to linkages with other SUNY institutions.
There are also issues on which the document is silent that would be of interest to UB faculty. The quality of the faculty recruited, and their retention and development is one such issue. There should be discussion of the evaluation of UB’s administration. There should be discussion of the adequacy of faculty governance. The ways in which UB can contribute to the regional economy should also be addressed. And there should be some discussion of the job prospects of our graduates.
These comments have been forwarded to Provost Triggle. The Academic Planning Committee will be as active in the iterative process of developing the Mission Review as is appropriate and allowed.
President Greiner added that the Mission Review document should be read in the context of the planning documents created by Provost Headrick and discussed by the campus over the past two years. Its appendices include quantitative data generated from the planning process. The Review is intentionally speculative about the changes educational technology will bring, and it picks selected areas to highlight, rather than being an exhaustive listing of programs. The segment on research and scholarship is, for example, entitled "Organized Research in the Sciences and Engineering;" it does not purport to talk about research of faculty members or groups of faculty, assuming that such research will exist and will continue to be supported. In the sciences we will have to collaborate across traditional lines and make choices about what major investments to make. By and large investment will be in areas UB has already invested in, e.g. biological and biomedical sciences. Finally, as a strategic matter, the discussion of interdigitization among SUNY institutions should arise from negotiations with SUNY Central and not be offered unilaterally.
The Chair recognized comments from the floor:
- very disappointed in the Mission Review document; it is not just a reiteration of Provost Headrick’s planning documents; instead it commits UB to major directions and major ideas which have not been subjected to faculty scrutiny; for example, the dominant role of distance learning, displacing "Mr. Chipsean" instruction, is heralded, but we haven’t really discussed this and the document doesn’t give reasons to convince the reader that it will happen; the document asks the campus to commit unknown amounts of resources with unknown consequences to other programs to four research areas selected by unknown criteria, but this selective approach runs counter to Provost Headrick’s approach of broadly improving UB’s NRC rankings; the document refers to a redefinition of graduate faculty status that will define the criteria and establish a periodic review, but there has been no prior discussion of such a redefinition; Albany either needs to be told that the document will not be submitted before there is adequate faculty review or the Faculty Senate should inform Albany that there has not been adequate faculty consultation (Professor Schack)
- the absence of discussion of the social sciences means simply a major interconnection between resources in hand and the future is simply missed; for example, modern economics research involves the use of supercomputer facilities and something is wrong with our vision if we talk about acquiring such a facility and neglect to mention its use in the social sciences (Professor Harwitz)
- an executive summary which can be used as a strong marketing tool for UB needs to be developed; the section of the report on the College of Arts & Sciences discusses what the College can do for the professional schools and that is a dangerous emphasis (Professor Adams-Volpe)
- the document is not visionary enough; instead of focusing on disciplines that every other research institution is also focusing on, we should develop strength in less popular areas; this strategy has served us well in the past; for example in the 1970’s we built up Civil Engineering when other institutions were phasing it out and from that we developed the Earthquake Center; we should not be sailing exactly like every one else (Professor George)
- feel uncomfortable criticizing serious work that someone else has done, but the work should have been collaborative from the beginning; Provost Triggle has a tendency to belabor the obvious about higher education; the document should assume knowledgeable readers; omit zingers like reviewing the graduate faculty that have not been discussed on campus (Professor Boot)
- investing in areas with potential makes good sense; the number and quality of undergraduate and graduate applications have risen sharply and we are attracting higher quality faculty since the restructuring of the computer sciences area; need access to the full Mission Review document, including the appendices, to give a true picture of it (Professor Sridhar)
- this document and this endeavor are enormously important; the Faculty Senate should be talking among ourselves and with the administration over the next months about the planning process; the President and Provost should help us focus on specific issues; not clear as to the wisdom of Professor Schack’s proposal that we communicate with Albany about the lack of prior consultation in developing the document (Professor Swartz)
- agree that the document feels unripe in the sense of undiscussed; will Albany hold our feet to the fire of what this document says, and what is the time frame for our discussion? (Professor Ludwig)
- enrollment is not always an indication of the quality of a department; enrollment is cyclical; to assess quality of a program you look at rankings; Civil Engineering grew after the Earthquake Center was located here, not the other way round; doubt investment against trends would often be successful. (Professor Ahmad)
- applaud the document; in the past the University has been a set of silos without integrated activity; to excel you need team work (Professor Yates)
- in support of Professor George, cite the German proverb that says only dead fish always swim with the stream; the comment about the graduate faculty doesn’t belong in a mission review statement; agree that this is an important document and that we haven’t had adequate time to comment on it, so suggest devoting an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting or scheduling a special meeting just to discuss this document with the understanding that such a discussion will satisfy the need for faculty consultation (Professor Malone)
- will take the suggestion under advisement and discuss it with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (Professor Nickerson)
- the Mission Review statement is an administrative document; we should develop a faculty document which would be appended to it and which would indicate where there is diversity of opinion (Professor Wickert)
- Provost Triggle is soliciting written comments on the statement and will respond to comments indicating the action taken on it; urge Senators who spoke to also send their comments to the Provost; the UB Mission Statement will be included in the Mission Review document (President Greiner)
- if we maintain our commitment to being a comprehensive university, a mission statement that addresses rather narrowly certain specific thrusts without giving some reasonable presentation to the general thrust and direction of the institution is a misrepresentation of where we want to go and what we want to do (Professor Baumer)
- put Faculty Senate committees to work on various issues raised by the document immediately; but let’s provide faculty comment intelligently, not just quickly (Professor Schack)
- are there copies of the 37 questions set by Albany available? (Professor Bisson)
- anyone who wants a copy, give me their name, and I will see they get a copy (Professor Nickerson)
Professor Fisher reported that the meeting of the SUNY Senate in Cortland was a huge success and was very well attended. President’s Aceto report condemned the SUNY Board of Trustees, the Chancellor and the SUNY administration for ignoring the SUNY Senate on many issues, for example passing the General Education Requirement without campus consultation. There was a report that the Governor’s budget favored private colleges, that it taxed public colleges; promised increases and inflationary costs were excised from the budget. The Executive Committee reported on Health Sciences concerns. Two candidates were put forward for the Presidency of the SUNY Senate, Joseph Flynn, SUNY College of Technology at Alfred, and Joseph Hildredth, SUNY College at Potsdam. A number of resolutions were passed with a request for a timely response from SUNY.
Professor Wickert stated that in the College of Arts & Sciences, several Authorizations To Recruit’s had been granted this Fall, but after the recruitment process was complete, the ATR’s were withdrawn. He asked if it would be possible to ascertain how many ATR’s across the campus were authorized and then withdrawn? The rumor is that the College of Arts & Sciences was cannibalized so that commitments in the professional schools could be met.
The Chair promised to follow up on this question and report at the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn M. Kramer
Secretary of Faculty Senate
Present:
Chair: P. Nickerson
Secretary: M. Kramer
Architecture & Planning: H. Hata
Arts & Letters: J. Ludwig, M. Wickert, F. Pellicone, P.
McKenna
Dental Medicine: E. Davis, M. Neiders
Engineering & Applied Sciences: S. Ahmad, D. Benenson, W.
George, R. Mayne, R. Sridhar
Graduate School of Education: C. Hosenfeld, L. Klenk, L. Malave
Health Related Professions: S. Nochajski, J. Tamburlin
Information & Library Studies: George D’Elia
Law: L. Swartz
Management: J. Boot, J. Newman, C. Pegels
Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: B. Albini, D. Amsterdam,
E. Fine, W. Flynn, S. Gallagher, S. Gallant, B. Noble, C. Smith, J. Yates,
A. Vladutiu
Natural Sciences & Mathematics: M. Bisson, M. Churchill,
J. Faran, M. Ram, K. Regan, S. Schack
Nursing: J. Thompson
Pharmacy: T. Kalman, R. Madejski
Social Sciences: W. Baumer, H. Calkins, L. Dryden, M. Harwitz,
P. Luce, J. Meacham, S. Singer, B. Smith, L. Vardi
SUNY Senators: J. Adams-Volpe, J. Fisher, D. Malone, C. Welch
University Libraries: C. Densmore, W. Hepfer, D. Woodson
University Officers:William Greiner, President Robert Wagner,
Senior Vice President
Guests:
William Cole, Chair, Professional Staff Senate
Sue Wuechter, Reporter
Kerry Grant, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences
Excused:
Arts & Letters: J. Holstun
Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: M. Alashari, A. Saltzman
Absent:
Architecture & Planning: S. Vassigh
Arts & Letters: M. Frisch, M. Hyde, B. Ault
Dental Medicine: R. Baier, M. Easley, R. Hall
Engineering & Applied Sciences: S. Mohan
Graduate School of Education: B. Johnstone
Health Related Professions: L. Gosselin
Law: I Marcus
Management: R. Ramesh
Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: S. Awner, J. DeBerry, S.
Greenberg, A. Michalek, S. Rudin, F. Schimpfhauser, D. Schwartz, S. Spurgeon,
J. Sulewski, A. Wakhloo, B. Willer
Natural Sciences & Mathematics: J. Berry, S. Bruckenstein,
M. Cowen
Nursing: M. Johnson, P. Wooldridge
Social Sciences: J. Dewald, J. Lawler, E. Segal
Unversity Libraries: H. Booth, M. Zubrow
Faculty Senate
543 Capen Hall
University at Buffalo (North Campus)
Buffalo, New York 14260-1680
Tel: 716-645-2003
Fax: 716-645-2717
Email: facultysenate@buffalo.edu
Contact Us
© Copyright University at Buffalo Faculty Senate | UB Home | Accessibility | Legal Notices | Website Acknowledgements