FACULTY SENATE
Minutes of March 4, 2003 - (approved)
E-MAIL: ZBFACSEN@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

---

The Faculty Senate met at 2:00 p.m. on March 4, 2003, in the Center for Tomorrow to consider the following agenda:

1. Approval of the minutes of February 4, 2003
   
2. Report of the Chair
   
3. Report of the President/Provost
   
4. Report of the Elections Committee -- Will Hepfer, Chair
   
5. Report on the SUNY response to Homeland Security preparedness -- Bruce A. Holm
   
6. 2nd reading of the Resolution for Supporting Amendment of the DMCA and Opposing Enactment of Laws Like CBDTPA -- John Ringland
   
7. 2nd reading of the Resolution for University Support of Open Software and Standards -- John Ringland
   
8. Report of CIO Voldemar Innus --
   
   1. Microsoft contract
      
   2. University Support of Linux
      
   3. Computing Center's response to Homeland Security concerns
      
9. Old/New business
   
10. Adjournment
    

Item 1: Approval of the minutes of February 4, 2003

The February 4, 2003, minutes were approved after noting the following corrections:

Professor Hopkins indicated that p. 1, Item 2, par. 2, line 3 had an extra word - "that" should be deleted so the sentence reads "Jeremy Jacobs would chair the committee." She also pointed out that "now, therefore, be it" should be replaced by "and" in p. 5, numbered clause 7, and "Do little (RC-A)" on p. 5, numbered clause 8, line 3 should be "Doolittle (RC-A)."

Professor Sridar said that his name was misspelled on p. 9, and Professor Thurston noted that her remarks on p. 9 were incorrectly attributed to Professor Chen.

Item 2: Report of the Chair

The Chair summarized the agenda and explained that the Homeland Security report would be of interest, because the Senate will need to consider whether faculty input should be part of the policy-making structure.

Item 3: Report of the President/Provost

None

Item 4: Report of the Elections Committee -- Will Hepfer

Professor Hepfer, chair of the Elections Committee, reported that an attempt to elect four senators from the Institutional/General faculty last October had been unsuccessful. There were 10 nominations, but only one person was willing to serve.

Nominations were solicited in November for two University (SUNY) senator positions - one from the Health Sciences and one from the Academic Core. Four faculty were interested in running for the Health Sciences seat, so ballots were sent only to the Health Sciences faculty. Those ballots were recently counted, and Professor Peter Nickerson was re-elected for another two-year term.

Academic Core faculty didn't receive ballots because only one candidate submitted a platform statement by the deadline. Professor William Baumer was then elected when a motion was made and seconded that the Secretary of the Faculty Senate cast one vote for the unopposed candidate.

The election for a new chair of the Faculty Senate is underway, and all members of the Voting Faculty should have received ballots. The deadline for submitting those ballots is March 18th.

Professor Schack suggested that, since the two SUNY senators-elect are also the candidates for Chair of the Faculty Senate, it would be politic of the winner to resign his SUNY senator seat so a new election can be held. The Chair gets to attend the SUNY Senate meetings as well, so this would free a spot for someone else and allow us to send the maximum number of delegates.

Chair Cohen explained that, although the Chair gets to attend SUNY Senate meetings as a governance leader, there is little opportunity for input in policy matters. Only senators get to vote on resolutions, so unless the new chair feels otherwise, it's probably not advisable to resign in order to add an additional UB attendee.

Professor Hepfer said that FSEC had discussed how to increase faculty involvement in Senate affairs without coming to any conclusions. He solicited further comments or suggestions, and Professor Boot said that Faculty Senate participation doesn't carry much weight in decisions that affect one's academic career. It doesn't seem to have much effect on whether the President's Review Board supports a faculty member's promotion and/or tenure.

Item 5: Report on the SUNY response to Homeland Security preparedness -- Bruce A. Holm

Senior Vice Provost Bruce A. Holm said that, in the fall of 2001, the Chancellor put together two task forces - one on cybersecurity and one on biodefense. They produced several white papers that led to a few proposals. He (Dr. Holm) was added to the biodefense task force when the original chair stepped down. The new group decided to focus on public health and bioinformatics. Together with other academic institutions and government agencies, they formed a consortium to create the Northeast Biodefense Center (NBC).

NBC would seek financial support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), federal agencies intent on developing regional centers of excellence in biodefense. All of the states/territories (New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) have collaborated smoothly, so NBC is optimistic that it will be funded.

The Center's research would focus on public health and medical informatics; sensor technology and bioinformatics; and therapeutics including new methods of drug and vaccine delivery. Some of their work would deal with agents and toxins such as anthrax, bubonic and pneumonic plagues, and pox viruses.

NIAID has identified a list of high-priority products it wants to see developed, and NBC's proposal meets all of the criteria for potential funding.

Item 6: 2nd reading of the Resolution Supporting Amendment of the DMCA and Opposing Enactment of Laws Like CBDTPA -- Faculty Senate Computer Services -- John Ringland

Professor Ringland reiterated that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) was crafted at the behest of the movie, recording, and publishing industries on the pretext of preventing piracy, which it doesn't do at all. However, it is really an attempt to increase the degree of control which copyright holders can exercise over the use of published information. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures that restrict access to a copyrighted work.

Several organizations, including the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the American Library Association, have expressed opposition to the DMCA. Our voices are needed, too.

The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA) is a bill that would restore Fair Use by amending the DMCA so as to allow circumvention of access controls for uses that do not infringe on copyright. That bill deserves and needs our support.

Since the entire Resolution was read at last month's Faculty Senate meeting, the sections were reviewed by paraphrasing:

Number 1 says we need unfettered access to information.

Number 2 says we need to be the ones who control our own computers.

Number 3 notes the importance of the First Sale doctrine to the existence of libraries.

Number 4 describes how DMCA has criminalized legitimate access to information.

Number 5 observes that the Hollings Bill would render legitimate access to information physically impossible.

Number 6 notes that the DMCA and Hollings Bill extinguish Fair Use and First Sale rights.

Number 7 concludes that the DMCA and Hollings Bill undermine our core missions.

Number 8 notes that the DMCRA would fix the DMCA.

Number 9 declares the UB faculty's opposition to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA and to hardware mandates like the Hollings Bill and calls on the President and Provost to support these positions publicly.

Number 10 calls for the use of the University's Office of Governmental Relations to lobby for enactment of the DMCRA, and against any reintroduced version of the Hollings Bill that likewise threatens research and academic freedom.

A representative from UB's Office of Governmental Affairs said that they are already working with the AAU to lobby for the DMCRA.

Professor Campbell said that the Resolution makes a strong case, but he still has reservations about supporting it because we've only heard one side. The DMCA surely had both supporters and detractors when it was debated in Congress, so he's wary of the Faculty Senate supporting the Resolution without knowing more. Many bills that impact universities go through Congress, and it's unclear why the DMCRA is being singled out.

Professor Ringland said that the DMCRA is especially important and urgent to academia, and the only people supporting the DMCA are those who stand to gain financially from it.

Professor Schack said that this is a case where there isn't a defensible other side. It is more important than other bills because it goes right to the core of academic values: free expression and exchange of ideas, free access to them within the bounds of Fair Use.

The Chair called the question, and the Resolution passed with all but one in favor.

The Chair asked Professor Ringland to provide an executive summary of the Resolution, which will be forwarded to the President and the Office of Governmental Affairs.

Item 6: 2nd reading of the Resolution for University Support of Open Software and Standards -- Faculty Senate Computer Services Committee -- John Ringland

Professor Ringland summarized the Resolution's context by saying that diversity in our software infrastructure will ensure our viability and vitality in a rapidly changing technological environment. Microsoft's so-called "solutions" are not ideally suited for academia, and there are huge differences between what academic life in the future will be like under a monolithic Microsoft regime and what it can be with a heterogeneous infrastructure including a significant open software component.

The playing field has been tilted in Microsoft's favor by policies and pressures to standardize on Microsoft software, presumably because CIT wants to keep administration simple. Microsoft locks customers in by making it difficult to do only part of a job with a Microsoft product, and also by making it difficult to work with a Microsoft user without being one yourself.

During the past year, there has been a groundswell in the use of Linux and open-source software, even a little at UB. UB is still far behind many other academic institutions such as MIT, Princeton, and Cambridge in getting administrative support for open-source software, however.

Globally, there has been a large shift toward the use of open-source software in government for reasons like adaptability and local control that are equally applicable to academia.

The Resolution, which was read in full at the last meeting, was paraphrased today:

Numbers 1 and 2 are the same as the previous resolution: we need unfettered access to information, and we need to be the ones who control our computers.

Number 3 says that Microsoft has long-standing business strategies that impede the free flow of information.

Number 4 notes that Microsoft is heavily involved in new DRM technology that will restrict access to data on our own computers.

Number 5 says that a closed-source proprietary operating system cannot be modified for specific needs.

Number 6, parts a, b, & c gives instances of Microsoft's lack of regard for user privacy and control.

Number 7 says that heavy dependence on Microsoft software makes us powerless to resist any unreasonable demands they might make.

Number 8 notes that saving our work in secret proprietary formats reduces accessibility in the short term and jeopardizes it in the long term.

Number 9 points out that the open-source software has none of the above disadvantages.

Number 10 says that open-source software is mostly free of charge and doesn't drive hardware upgrades.

Numbers 11 and 12 conclude that exclusive or predominant use of Microsoft is detrimental to our core missions while open-source software is friendly to them.

Number 13 calls on UB's administrators to support the GNU/Linux operating system.

Number 14 calls for support of OpenOffice, free software that provides most of the features of Microsoft Office.

Number 15 calls for support of open-source application software, such as a free alternative to Microsoft's image manipulator, Photoshop.

Number 16 calls for policies that favor the use of open document formats and communication protocols, and that discourage the use of secret and proprietary formats for archiving and general communication, with no intent to restrict the use of proprietary formats in communication between consenting parties.

Professor Adams-Volpe said there's not enough information for her to support the Resolution. She would like to know the financial implications of supporting open-source software. She opposes Number 16 which calls on UB Administrators to discourage the use of Microsoft products.

CIO Voldemar Innus referred to last month's Faculty Senate minutes which paraphrased Professor Ringland's remarks regarding "pressure from UB's Chief Information Officer to standardize campus computing on Microsoft software." Dr. Innus's view differs, and he recalled planning for Access 99 when UB students were first required to have access to computers. Many committees were involved in the process, and the decision to standardize on Microsoft products and to license Microsoft software for students was made by a committee that Professor Ringland participated in. There was no pressure from the Office of the CIO.

Professor Ringland said that his recollection of those meetings is very different than Dr. Innus's. There was no faculty agreement on Microsoft standardization, but the Microsoft Campus Agreement was negotiated regardless.

Dr. Innus said there's no exclusionary policy with regard to computing hardware or software at UB. There's room for multiple platforms, and the university community itself chooses through what it does how it is we support teaching and research and community service. Even though 6.2% of surveyed students said they use Linux, they all indicated that they use Microsoft software as well. Students work in mixed environments, depending on what they want to accomplish.

Supporting additional platforms obviously costs more, but the most important factor is whether we are supporting the computing needs of UB faculty, staff, and students.

Professor Sridar said he would like CIT to support multiple platforms, but he doesn't like the parts of the Resolution that come across as Microsoft-bashing. The Faculty Senate should be making a positive statement on the issue, and it's not in our best interest to denigrate a company in that statement. He moved (with a second) to amend the Resolution by deleting Numbers 3, 4, and 6a-b-c and modifying Numbers 7 and 9 by replacing the Microsoft reference with "proprietary." In Number 16, the phrase "and discouraging the use of closed proprietary formats (such as Microsoft Word format)" should be deleted.

Professor Adams-Volpe spoke in favor of the amendment because it strengthens the Resolution and doesn't focus on any particular proprietary system.

Professor Schack opposed the amendment. He said the Resolution is not so much Microsoft-bashing as it is "well-deserved bashing." There's a big problem with the type of support that Microsoft has gotten at UB. The University has supported Microsoft so much while ignoring other platforms that Macintosh and Netscape users are unable to access critical Web pages without crashing their computers. Microsoft deserves to be singled out in the Resolution because it's to blame for many of today's computing problems at UB. Excuses such as "It's what the students use" are laughable; we don't let the students choose the textbooks for their courses. Faculty should be able to select and use the software that's best-suited for their academic needs. Financial considerations for academic purposes shouldn't be a concern as long as there is money available for non-academic programs.

Professor Thurston agreed that Microsoft is blamable, because she had to argue forcefully before she was able to get Macintosh-compatible software that she needs for her teaching. When she was considering whether to accept a job at UB last year, she had to decide without being able to access the Faculty Handbook from her Mac.

Dr. Innus said that Access 99 decisions weren't only based on what students already used; they also reflected what software students were likely to be using in their careers after graduation. Regardless, making Microsoft software available to students doesn't restrict anyone from using other platforms. The number of Linux machines will be increased to 112 by fall semester as a result of the recent survey.

Professor Gregg said her department (Geology) favors the Resolution as it stands, because the Microsoft Campus Agreement threatens academic freedom. Number 16 doesn't preclude using Microsoft products; it should stay because it supports open-document formats for communicating, which is the essence of a university.

Professor Campbell spoke in favor of the amendment, because the University should be neutral about software products. Faculty should be able to make individual choices about the products they need to teach and do research.

Professor Jensen also favored the amendment. It's not about liking or disliking Microsoft. The purpose of the amendment is to focus on open-source software, which it does better than the original Resolution.

Professor Ringland disagreed that the amendment helps to focus on open-source software. The Microsoft references are needed because Microsoft is part of the problem insofar as promoting open-source computing.

Professor Steiner said her department (Architecture) supports the original Resolution, because everything it says about Microsoft is true. The Resolution isn't negative or positive; it's just the way it is.

When the Chair called the question, a request was made for a quorum count. A quorum was not present at this time, so the Chair asked for a vote of the sense of the house. The vote was 15-14 in favor of the amendment.

Professor Schack recommended ignoring the vote since it was too close to actually reflect the sense of the house. He proposed postponing action until the next meeting when voting on the amendment should be the first item on the agenda following approval of the minutes. This

© Copyright University at Buffalo Faculty Senate | UB Home | Accessibility | Legal Notices | Website Acknowledgements