FACULTY SENATE
Minutes of May 11, 1999 - (approved)
E-MAIL: ZBFACSEN@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

The Faculty Senate met at 2:00 PM on May 11, 1999 in the Center for Tomorrow to consider the following agenda:

        1. Approval of the Minutes of April 6 and April 20, 1999
        2. Report of the Chair
        3. Report of the President/Provost
        4. Alert for Instructional Staff -- second reading
        5. Statements proposed for expedited reading
        6. Report of the University Faculty Senate Meeting
        7. Old/New Business
 

Item 1: Approval of the Minutes of April 6 and April 20, 1999

        The Minutes of April 6 and April 20, 1999 were approved.
 

Item 2: Report of the Chair

        Noting that this was the last meeting of the 1998/1999 Faculty Senate, the Chair recognized Anna Kedzierski, the Faculty Senate administrative assistant without whom the Senate would not run. The Senate applauded Ms. Kedzierski’s fine work.

        The Chair’s written report was included in the mailing for the meeting. He emphasized that the new science news policy mentioned in the report was not due to any fault of the News Bureau but was occasioned by the premature release of some items.

        The Committees have been active this year. Most will finish their work by Summer recess.
 

Item 3: Alert for Instructional Staff -- second reading

        Professor Boot introduced the resolution which he described as being about sexual harassment. In many cases at the end of a consensual sexual relationship between a faculty member and a student in the faculty member’s class, the student comes to believe that his/her consent to the relationship was coerced. If the student complains, the faculty member, because of the faculty member’s initial power and professional responsibilities toward the student, is suddenly placed in a compromised and defensive position against a charge of sexual harassment. This alert to faculty of the potential consequences of a failed relationship with a student will serve as a warning sign that the road is a dangerous one.

        Most colleges and universities have policies that outline procedures for a student who feels aggrieved. UB needs such a policy to protect itself if the complainant seeks redress outside of the University.

        The motion was moved and seconded.

        Ms. Stewart, Director of the Office of Equity, Diversity and Affirmative Action, then spoke to the body. She noted first that the alert is only a warning; it is not an infringement of rights, an invasion of privacy or a mechanism for discipline. It is a statement that informs faculty that certain behavior may have adverse consequences. Some consequences could be a charge of quid pro quo sexual harassment, a hostile environment charge of sexual harassment for behavior after the affair, or a complaint of sexual harassment by a third party to the relationship alleging loss of opportunity because of favoritism. Such charges could be brought to her Office, to a court or to a federal regulatory agency. If such charges are brought one of the issues will be consent and the "reasonable woman" standard will be applied. Sexual harassment can be devastating to a student and a charge of sexual harassment can severely damage the faculty member’s reputation and career. There are issues of liability for the University and the faculty member’s supervisor also. Ms. Stewart urged adoption of the alert to protect both faculty and students.

        Professor Swartz raised a point of order. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee had been promised that Ms. Stewart would inform the Senate about the work and progress of an administrative committee which is drafting sexual harassment policies. He asked that Ms. Stewart address the issue.

        Ms. Stewart said first that UB has a sexual harassment policy. There is a committee working on a set of procedures to enforce the policy. The committee’s document is in the hands of SUNY counsel, who is rewriting one section. When the document is returned from Albany and after the President has seen it, the document will be presented to the Faculty Senate.

        Professor Ram offered an amendment stipulating that primary supervisory responsibility for a thesis or dissertation should be transferred to another faculty member if the supervisor and the student are romantically involved. The Parliamentarian advised the Chair to rule the amendment out of order, which the Chair did.

        There were comments from the floor:

• in deliberations of this matter, there has been a lack of clarity about what the purpose of the alert is, what its effect would be and what is its rationale; today we have been told that this alert is only an extension of the sexual harassment policy which is being developed by an administrative committee; unclear why the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility should be working on an extension of a matter already under the jurisdiction of another committee; much of the prior discussion has been directed towards an enforceable code of conduct, and indeed the alert is heavily based on Rosovsky’s code of conduct for Harvard faculty which considered romantic relations with students always wrong and to be punished; Rosovsky’s code, however, provided procedural due process provisions which are completely lacking from this alert (Professor Swartz)
• we are not being asked to adopt the whole Harvard code, only the document in front of us; it is only a warning and it is tiresome to be told that it is something different than what the proposers say it is (Professor Baumer)
• the language of the alert has inconsistencies; for example, the first article reads "Members of the teaching staff should be aware that any romantic involvement with their students may lead to formal action against them if a complaint is registered by a student;" if "formal action" means a hearing, it is the complaint that leads to the formal action, not the romantic involvement; if "formal action" means punishment of the faculty member for sexual harassment, then it is a finding against the faculty member that leads to formal action, not the romantic involvement; the wording seems to introduce the idea that a romantic involvement between a faculty member and a student is in itself culpable (Professor Holstun)
• sat through the same FSEC discussion of the document as Professor Swartz and can not agree that the document was described as anything other than an alert; the document is not legislative, it is a warning within the purview of the Faculty Senate (Professor Harwitz)
• strange to adopt an extension to a policy on sexual harassment which itself has not yet been created; the subtext of this discussion is the moral valuation of relationships between faculty and students as wrong, but many of us know marriages that have arisen from such relationships; this policy will have the collateral effect of influencing the extent to which faculty are willing to meet with students in private and will damage students, especially female students; do we really want that kind of mentality at UB? Professor Boot suggested that people will think the lesser of the Senate for not adopting this resolution, but the resolution must stand on its own merits (Professor Schack)
• this is a very simple statement for a very serious issue; we are spending much time massaging a statement that should have been adopted 25 years ago; this is only a warning about a potential problem and is not a big thing; this statement will not impact my interactions with male students and it should not impact male faculty’s interactions with female students; thanks to the Committee members who worked so patiently to come up with a compromise statement (Professor Malave)
• this statement very carefully does not say that romantic relationships between faculty and students are wrong; it only says that formal action may be brought against the faculty member by the student or by a third party to the relationship; faculty need to be aware that there are court cases holding faculty and their universities liable for such behavior (Professor Adams-Volpe)

        Professor George moved (seconded) to postpone the issue until the first meeting of the Fall for three reasons. First the Senate is not converging on the issue. Second we should have the harassment policy before deciding on this resolution. Third, the alert will get more attention from the faculty at the beginning of an academic year, rather than at the end of one.

        The Chair asked for discussion on the wisdom of postponing:

• we have already postponed this issue for a year, and the legal research and discussion has been done; let a vote decide if there is consensus on the issue (Professor Adams-Volpe)
• we haven’t yet decided whether this resolution is or is not about sexual harassment; the statement as written is not clear and needs to be rewritten; support postponement (Professor Wickert)
• support postponement; the resolution has changed repeatedly, so we have not been discussing any one resolution for a year; we do not have clarity about the policy on sexual harassment which is under development (Professor Swartz)
• this is not rocket science, nuclear physics or brain surgery; see only male obstructionism in postponement (Professor Boot)

        The motion to postpone failed by a vote of 15 to 34.

        There was a motion (seconded) to close debate. The motion passed by a 2/3 voice vote.

        The resolution, an alert for instructional faculty, passed. The Chair thanked the Committee for its work.
 

Item 4: Report of the President

        President Greiner spoke about the University’s sexual harassment policy. The University is subject to all New York and federal law dealing with sexual harassment. Since that law is not self-executing, a Task Force has developed a set of procedures which will facilitate the implementation of law and policy within the University. These procedures were shared with the Deans, and it was intended that they be shared with Faculty Senate, though that seems not to have happened. SUNY counsel and Professor Finley, a co-chair of the Task Force, are simplifying some of the procedure in response to concerns raised during review. They are also writing a primer to guide us on what sexual harassment is and what are some of the pitfalls. The final documents will be shared with Faculty Senate at its first meeting in the Fall. President Greiner will not take action on the document until there has been campus wide discussion of it.

        The President reported that there appears to be no progress on a state budget. It is possible there will not a final budget, but only a series of continuing resolutions. The mechanism of withholding legislators’ pay until there is a budget is not having an impact on the process.

        This has been a good year for the University. Faculty, students and staff have done many good things. He thanked the Faculty Senate for its work and indicated that although at times its debates have been contentious, overall there has been a collegial atmosphere.

        There were questions from the floor:

• one hears whispers of cases of sexual harassment, specifically in Personnel; why not publicize cases of sexual harassment since the terms of settlement are public knowledge? (Professor Holstun)
• if there is actual litigation, that becomes a matter of public record, but if a settlement is involved it is common that neither party is at liberty to discuss the terms in the press; the University will not publish rumor, but if the press feels it has a story, so be it (President Greiner)
• how would you feel about the Reporter publishing the story? (Professor Wickert)
• the University does not control what is contained in the Reporter; however, as a University publication it should adhere to standards appreciably above the tabloid press (President Greiner)

Item 5: Statements proposed for expedited reading

        The Chair asked if there was objection to an expedited reading of two resolutions. There being none, the Chair outlined the ground of the two resolutions. At its December meeting the Faculty Senate referred two motions to the FSEC for its deliberation. The FSEC formed a committee composed of previous chairs of the Senate currently serving on the FSEC to draft statements. The FSEC transmitted the statements to the Faculty Senate.

        The first statement reads: "The Faculty recognize that Dr. Irwin Guttman is an excellent scholar, and wishes to extend their appreciation of his stewardship of the Department of Statistics. We look forward to his continued contributions to the discipline and to the University and wish him all good success." There was a motion (seconded) to adopt the statement. Without discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The Chair will transmit the statement to Professor Guttman.

        The second statement reads: "Whenever initiation, termination, amalgamation, division or major reorganization of an academic unit is under consideration, that shall be reported promptly by the cognizant Dean, Vice President or the Provost to the Chair of the Faculty Senate who shall report it to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall determine the actions to be taken by the Senate." There was a motion (seconded) to adopt the statement.

        Professor Baumer, who drafted Statement 2, said it is intended to clarify for administrative officers what notification is expected when there is consideration of the actions listed above. It is also intended to put the burden of deciding whether Faculty Senate action is needed on the FSEC, rather than just on the Chair of the Faculty Senate.

        The Chair then recognized the remaining members of the committee for their comments. Professor Malone added that, if the statement is adopted, the Bylaws Committee should be asked to draft appropriate language for inclusion in the Standing Orders, and the President should be asked to sign it. Professor Welch noted that the statement would make it easier for the Academic Planning Committee to stay better informed. Professor Boot reserved his right to speak as a member of the committee until he had heard the discussion.

        The Chair then recognized other Senators:

• many possible rearrangements are thought about in long term, tentative planning; the phrase "under consideration" sets a very low threshold for notifying the Chair of possible changes in structure (Professor Swartz)
• the phrase "reported promptly" should be "reported before implementation;" the statement should specify notification in writing; don’t want to hear all the contingencies that are discussed (Professor Rudin)
• need a mechanism for notification during the summer when Faculty Senate doesn’t meet (Professor Woodson)
• these two statements originated from a motion of censure but lack any sense of being related or mention of censure; if the extra-procedural dismantling of an academic department does not deserve censure, what administrative action would warrant it?(Professor Holstun)
• the President having already apologized for the failure to follow procedure in the matter of the Department of Statistics, the committee felt a motion of censure was unnecessary; "under consideration" does not mean idle discussion; it means that people are thinking with some seriousness about a proposal to which they are prepared to devote work and attention; need to be informed before that process is far advanced; during the summer, the Chair is available to the administration, the Chair can call a meeting of the FSEC, and the FSEC can call the Senate into session if there is sufficient urgency (Professor Schack)
• statement is an outline from which the Bylaws Committee will draft procedure to be included in the Standing Orders; members of the Senate do not become comatose during the summer, so the Chair should feel free to call them into session if necessary; although the statement also directs action by the Chair, this should not be read as acceptance of blame for the failure of the Senate to be informed in a timely fashion about the Department of Statistics; Senate input into decision making will ensure that decisions are based on more adequate knowledge (Professor Schack)
• delighted with the low threshold for Senate notification of academic program changes; too often the Senate has been behind the learning curve about changes (Professor Benenson)
• should make clear that this statement is a substitute for a motion of censure; Professor Baumer says that the President’s apology satisfactorily resolved the issue, but I perceived the President’s actions as a parody of an apology; if there is a repetition of this kind of administrative hanky-panky, the Senate should use its power to embarrass (Professor Wickert)
• the promised oversight committee for the teaching of statistics has not emerged; there are now two courses of statistics being offered, down from fifty under Professor Guttman; the mischief is still continuing, and we may need to censure the administration for current, not past, actions (Professor Boot)

        The Chair called for the vote. Statement 2 was adopted.
 

Item 6: Report of the University Faculty Senate Meeting

        Professor Malone reported that the focus of the University Faculty Senate Meeting was a motion of no confidence in the Board of Trustees endorsed by all but two of the SUNY campuses. The SUNY Faculty Senate, after considerable debate, endorsed the resolution. The resolution was announced at a press conference. The Board of Trustees has tried, rather unsuccessfully, to counter the negative publicity generated by the resolution. It has been reported that the Governor’s Office is very unhappy and wants some action from the Board. There was a discussion of the budget, the outcome of which was an agreement that there was no budget process to discuss. Joe Flynn from Alfred was elected the next President.
 

Item 7: Old/New Business

        Professor Benenson raised new business. Princeton Review conducts an annual survey of students from 311 colleges and universities, asking them to rate their institution; the results are available at their web site <http.//www.review.com>. The survey covers a wide range of topics from academics to social life and claims to be qualitative and anecdotal rather than quantitative and analytical. This report should be of concern to us because it is widely accessible and can influence prospective students’ and their parents’ perceptions of UB.

        Professor Benenson presented slides showing how UB ranked. In the negative category "professors suck all life from material" UB ranks the very worst. Complicating our reaction to that ranking is that the ten worst institutions also include Stony Brook, Albany, Toronto, Michigan State, UCLA, Georgia Tech., and the University of Michigan. Prospective students may, however, not look carefully at the quality of the institutions ranked worst. UB ranks 1st in the category "professors make themselves scarce," 18th in the category "class discussions are rare," 5th in the category "students almost never study," and 11th in the category "long lines and red tape." UB’s students rank among the least happy; the campus is rated as being "tiny, unsightly or both," and our dorms are rated as dungeons.

        Believing it is dangerous to allow these ranking to go unchallenged, Professor Benenson proposed that the Faculty Senate immediately undertake an initiative that includes faculty, students, staff and administration to review the full survey, investigate how it conducted, and prepare a response to key issues. This work should be completed by the Fall and be presented at our first Senate meeting.

        There was a motion (seconded) to refer the matter to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. The motion passed.

        Professor Baumer proposed that the Senate express its appreciation to the Chair at the conclusion of his first term and wish him well in his second term. There was warm applause for the Chair.

        The meeting adjourned at 3:50 PM.
 

Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn M. Kramer
Secretary of Faculty Senate
 

Present:

Chair: P. Nickerson
Secretary: M. Kramer
Architecture & Planning: H. Hata
Arts & Letters: B.Ault, J. Holstun, J. Ludwig, M. Wickert
Dental Medicine: M. Easley, G. Ferry
Engineering & Applied Sciences: D. Benenson, W. George, R. Mayne, R. Sridhar
Graduate School of Education: B. Johnstone, L. Malave
Health Related Professions: L. Gosselin, S. Nochajski
Law: L. Swartz
Management: J. Boot, J. Newman, C. Pegels
Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: M. Alashari, B. Albini, D. Amsterdam, E. Fine, S. Gallant, S. Heffner, A. Michalek, B. Noble, S. Rudin, A. Saltzman, F. Schimpfhauser, D. Swartz, C. Smith, J. Sulewski, B. Willer, J. Yates, A. Vladutiu
Natural Sciences & Mathematics: M. Bisson, M. Cowen, S. Cavior, M. Ram, K. Regan, S. Schack
Nursing: M. Johnson, J. Thompson
Pharmacy: T. Kalman
Social Sciences: W. Baumer, L. Dryden, M. Harwitz, P. Luce, S. Singer, B. Smith, L. Vardi
SUNY Senators: J. Adams-Volpe, J. Fishcer, D. Malone, C. Welch
University Libraries: H. Booth, C. Densmore, W. Hepfer, D. Woodson, M. Zubrow
University Officers: W. Greiner, President
 

Guests:

M. Arcara
S. Wuetcher, Reporter
J. Celock, The Spectrum
S. Ley, Student Association
 

Excused:

Health Related Professions: J. Tamburlin
Absent: Architecture & Planning: S. Vassigh
Arts & Letters: M. Frisch, M. Hyde, P. McKenna, F. Pellicone
Dental Medicine: R. Baier, R. Hall, M. Neiders
Engineering & Applied Sciences: S. Ahmad, S. Mohan
Graduate School of Education: C. Hosenfeld, L. Klenk
Information and Library Studies: G. D’Elia
Law: I. Marcus
Management: R. Ramesh
Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: S. Awner, J. DeBerry, S. Gallagher, S. Greenberg, S. Spurgeon, A. Wakhloo
Natural Sciences & Mathematics: J. Berry, S. Bruckenstein, M. Churchill
Nursing: P. Wooldridge
Pharmacy: R. Madejski
Social Sciences: H. Calkins, J. Dewald, J. Lawler, J. Meacham, E. Segal

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