Third summer session begins
Location: SUNY Oswego
Tuesday, June 27, 9:20 p.m. - 9:20 p.m.
Rice Creek Ramble
Family-friendly naturalist-led walk. Participants should dress for the weather and call 315-312-6677 on the morning of the hike to check trail conditions. Program size is limited, unable to accommodate groups. Children 17 and under must be accompanied by an adult. Free.
Location: Rice Creek Field Station
Saturday, July 8, 11 a.m. - noon
Tuesday, June 27, 9:20 p.m. - 9:20 p.m.
Faculty Assembly Minutes February 27, 2012
Chair: Joan Carroll Recorder: Stephanie Bischoping
Members Absent: M. Nojan, J. Lei, J. Early, A. Johnson, J. Nichols, A. Ieta, M. Ryniker, G. Kay
I. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as distributed.
II. Approval of September February 13 Minutes
The minutes were approved as distributed.
III. FA Interim Chair's Report - J. Carroll
The chair began her report by announcing that the president's council is establishing new scholarships to recognize SUNY Oswego's high-achieving students with the goal of increasing the retention rate of our strongest academic performers. She continued by reporting that the president has signed off on the ORITE Pilot proposal and the revisions to the Chemistry Honors Program.
Cynthia Claybough is on sabbatical so there will be an election in two weeks for a semester sabbatical replacement for the SCM&A seat on the Priorities and Planning council.
In two weeks, the proposal for a Transfer Preregistration Pilot Program Transfer will be on the agenda. Copies of the proposal were available at today's meeting.
Professor Carroll again announced the search for a replacement Faculty Assembly Clerk. If you have any recommendations please email her at email@example.com.
She continued to request that electronic versions of all handouts be emailed to the clerk at firstname.lastname@example.org. Posting electronic versions to the website will make them much easier to read, copy, etc.
Finally please remember to say your name and constituency before speaking so that all can learn colleagues' names.
IV. Reports of Councils, Committees, and Task Forces
· Personnel Policies Council
The council is working on a preliminary draft of a proposal for a task force to review governance and committee structure. In accordance with Faculty By-laws, Margaret and Joan are scheduled to meet with the provost later this week to continue work on the draft. The council will meet again on Friday
· Academic Policies Council
Academic Policies met on February 17. At this meeting MAT 379 was added to the list of electives for the Applied Statistics Minor, and MKT 395 was added to the list of Marketing electives students can use to satisfy the 6 hours of electives required for the Marketing BS.
Revisions to APC reporting out procedures that were approved last semester are ready to be considered by the full assembly.
There was extensive discussion of changes to the public relations major but the changes were returned to the department for revisions.
· Priorities and Planning
Met on February 17 and unanimously passed the proposed restrictions on internal transfers to degree programs offered in the Biological Sciences department. Students who wish to change their major to one offered in Biological Sciences must have completed ENG 102, CHE 111 and MAT 120 or higher with a C- grade or better and they must have a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher.
Previously, Biological Sciences was among the departments designated as "impacted" but we have since eliminated that designation. Departmental requests for restricted access to their major(s) are now reviewed on a case by case basis in consultation with the provost.
One concern discussed in connection with the Biological Sciences request is that students who originally came in as biological sciences majors would not be held to the same academic standards as required of internal transfers. Academic Policies will work on this issue.
Vice President Nick Lyons and Byron Smith gave a presentation on the Governors Executive Budget at the meeting.
Also, the Broadcast & Mass Communication major has requested access to its program. The council has asked for more in the way of justification and will consider their request at this Friday's meeting.
The council is working on guidelines to govern deliberations about requests for restricted access to programs.
· General Education
Met last week to discuss the General Education report and will meet tomorrow to discuss the specific questions asked of them by the General Education Task Force.
· Information Technology Council
The council met on February 17. At this meeting CTAB reported that they spent a fair amount of time looking at the Technology Plan and approved a number of its components.
CTAB Elected Bill Goffe as the new chair of the Education Committee.
Natalie Sturr did a presentation on the Middle States Documents Archive in LakerApps.
CTS also reported at this meeting. They are working on desktop upgrades and faculty computer replacement - delivering Windows 7 and Lion. There are a number of computers that won't support the new operating system, so these are being replaced. CTS has continued to evaluate video enterprise storage systems. Another lecture capture pilot is underway.
SCAP proposals approved last semester are now being funded, with equipment already arriving. There is lots of planning currently going on for summer 2012 projects.
There was an extensive discussion of the DSI/LakerApps survey preliminary results. A report will be given at a future FA meeting.
The next meeting will be Friday, Mar 23, 3:00-4:15pm.
· Graduate Council
Met last Friday to discuss a number of ART courses which are up for revision. They sent some recommendations back to the department, but no decisions were made. The council requests that departments with masters programs encourage their grad students to apply for scholarships because there were very few applications this semester.
· Library Council
· Admissions and Student Services Council
· Undergraduate Curriculum Council
· Academic Outreach
Tim Nekrits is working to find a time when academic outreach can meet.
· Campus Concept Committee
· Writing Across the Curriculum and Steering Committee
There is a Graduate student writing award with a deadline of March 9, please tell your graduate students about it.
The committee is looking for suggestions for a potential replacement for the Diana Hacker Rules for Writers book which is currently being used.
The writing center on the third floor of Penfield Library is up and running.
· General Education Task Force
The first general open forum to discuss the three models is this Wednesday in Campus Center 211 from 8:00-9:00.
· Assessment Advisory Committee
AAC dedicated their last meeting to going over Chapter 8 of the Middle States Self Study report, the assessment of student learning, to prepare for the Middle States Visit. Their plan is to continue to work on the website.
· Catalog Coordinator
UUP met with the state on February 23 and presented a very detailed defense of their proposals. They will meet again on March 8. They would like to remind faculty that their main argument is that due to the differences between UUP and the other 3 unions UUP cannot accept contracts with 0% increases over the next three years.
V. Elections for vacancies on FA Councils and Committees
No seats were filled at this meeting.
VI. Middle States Update
The report began with the provost thanking those who put so much time and effort into the Middle States Self-Study, particularly Co-Chairs Liz Schmitt and Julie Pretzat.
The co-chairs presented an overview of the entire process from the beginning to the present. In 2009-10 the Steering committee was appointed and members were selected for the various work groups. The work groups, in coordination with the steering committee, decided upon the Self-study design and began their processes. During 2010-11 work groups met and drafted portions of the self-study reports. There were multiple rounds of report editing and during this time, the evaluation team chair was selected - Dr. Javier Cevallos, President of Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. Dates were also selected for the Chair's preliminary visit, and for the team visit.
By Fall 2011, the draft of the self-study was complete and the campus was invited to comment during five open forums. Dr. Cevallos reviewed the draft and visited the campus November 2nd - 4th. Preparation of the electronic document repository began. This repository is actually a 651 MB LakerApps Google Documents Collection of over 700 documents, created by Natalie Sturr, Coordinator of Library technology. It can be accessed at http://www.oswego.edu/~sturr/middlestates.html
During this semester the 6-8 member evaluation team was also selected.
In January 2012 the final report was printed, published to the website at http://www.oswego.edu/academics/middlestates.html and sent to the evaluation team. Work groups are in the process of reconvening for two additional meetings. On April 2nd - 4th the evaluation team will visit and prepare their report. In June we will receive MSCHE final report and respond as an institution.
Our Self-Study is organized in a Comprehensive Model which includes 14 standards, grouped in to 8 Chapters. This is a unique organization of the report and it seems to have been well received.
The next steps in this process are for faculty to read the report and raise awareness (among colleagues and students) of the process and its significance. It is important for all faculty to be a part of the solution.
The self-study resulted in four major findings. First, fiscal resources are managed prudently to meet the current and future obligations of the college. Yes, there is a fiscal crisis but the central mission of the college has been sustained and efforts to fulfill the strategic vision for the college's future have moved forward. The second finding is that decisions and processes are guided by the college's strategic plan. Planning processes are inclusive and broadly communicated ensuring that the college's mission guides program development and resource allocation. The third major finding of the study is that the enrollment management process has made significant progress in diversity, geographic mix, and quality of the student profile. The fourth finding was in the area of Assessment. There are assessment systems in place for the institution and for student learning. We have an infrastructure that supports assessment practices and a growing culture that values assessment. We can improve, however, in taking steps to make sure that the processes ongoing and in using the results for improvement.
The major recommendations coming out of this study are in three areas:
- Improve transparency and communication on campus in several areas:
• Using new technologies to communicate important and successful initiatives
• Sharing assessment results and understanding assessment systems
• Communicating resource allocation decisions and their alignment with our strategic directions
• Informing relevant constituencies of decisions affecting day-to-day operations
Retention and Persistence
- Enhance retention efforts through the development of a comprehensive retention plan to give us better focus and direction.
- Find new and creative ways to "close the loop" on all types of institutional assessment activities.
- Make current assessments systems more consistent and thorough, with mapping for student learning in key areas including outcomes and the regular reporting of feedback.
VII. General Education Task Force Proposals
The Task Force on designing General Education for the 21st Century presented its second report, http://www.oswego.edu/academics/faculty/assembly/Minutes/msp12/February_13_Handouts.html
including three proposed models. Fehmi Demkaci (CHE) and David Valentio (ESC), co-chairs of the task force, explained the task force process which included a survey of the faculty conducted last spring. The survey results indicated that faculty want: smaller classes for General Education courses, the ability for students to complete minors and dual majors, more student choice, and ease of transferring credits. All three proposed models address all of these issues.
The co-chairs explained each of the models and answered questions from the floor. The task force requests that all departments meet and answer the following three questions in writing:
q Out of three models, as a department, which one would you prefer?
q Are there any changes to that model (or any other) that you would prefer?
q What impact might the model that you prefer have upon your department?
The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 PM.