|
 |
Minutes for February 11, 2004
A meeting of the University Senate was held at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 February 2004, in Maxwell Auditorium.
Present were: Chancellor Shaw; Senators: Alcoff, Andersen, Apjohn, Arnold, Arvas, Behm, Bennett, Bernard, Biklen (D.), Biklen (S.), Breese, Brenner, Caine, Caldwell, Carty, Cavanagh, Chander, Cihon, Crowston, deBerly, Diaz, Dimon, Donovan, Druger, Elin, Flusche, Gensemer, Gilman, Glauser, Greenberg, Himley, Hinchman, Hogan, Horwitz, Kelly, Kinsey, Kornfilt, Kosar, LaGraff, Landau, Lederman, Legaspi, Letterman (M.), Letterman (R.), MacInnes, Marcoccia, Maroney, McKay, Mercer, Misztal, Mulconry, Murphy, Newler, Newton, O'Rourke, Panetta, Peck, Pellow, Potter, Read, Rodriguez, Laleh, Sanford, Scherzinger, Schiff, Schneid, Schwarz, Seibert, Sherman, Smith, Spina, Spitzner, Stodel, Toth, Trento, Tucker, Tussing, Urtz, Wadley, Ware (B.), Ware (E.), Weaver, Webber, Wilbur, Wolf, Yao, Zacharia.
Presiding Officer: Chancellor Kenneth Shaw
On motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes of the University Senate meeting of 14 January 2004, as written. The Chancellor then called Agenda Committee Chairman Nahmin Horwitz to present the report of the Agenda Committee. Prof. Horwitz reported that two matters had been referred to the Committee on Instruction (one involving the course add deadline and the other to do with instructors having access to students via e.mail prior to the beginning of a semester). He also reported that because of the Senate motion re: the athletic subsidy approved at the January meeting, but not concurred in by the Chancellor, the Agenda Committee had decided to set up an ad hoc committee to examine this and related issues, and that its charge would be sent in the March packet, along with a slate of names for approval by the Senate. He expressed thanks to the Chancellor Search Committee on behalf of the Senate and the Agenda Committee, and called Prof. Paula Johnson, who made an announcement about the upcoming program to commemorate the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education opinion, which would be held on Friday, April 16th. She said that keynote speakers would be Cheryl Brown Henderson and Linda Brown Thompson, the plaintiffs in the case. Johnson said that the program was for the campus as well as the community at large, and that it would include commentary on the significance of the decision and exploration of its history. She said there'd be a web site for the event http://hendricks.syr.edu/brownvboard.
The Chancellor called Prof. Toth to present the report of the Committee on Curricula, which included a motion to approve new courses, changes, and new minors in the College of Arts and Sciences; new courses, changes and drops in the School of Education, College of Engineering and Computer Science, and College of Human Services and Health Professions; changes in the School of Information Studies, School of Management, School of Public Communications and College of Visual and Performing Arts; new program in University College. She pointed out that there were two corrections to the report: p. 14, title of CRS 456 being changed to Behavioral Methods of Communication Research; p. 18, MHL 685 World Music being dropped.
The motion carried.
The Chancellor asked that all non-senators leave the auditorium while the body discussed and voted on nominations proposed by the Committee on Honorary Degrees. He called Prof. Spina, who presented a list of 3 additional candidates for honorary degrees, and the body voted to approve the list. The Chancellor asked members of the Senate to invite the non-senators back inside.
Chancellor Shaw called Mr. Jason Caine, Chairman of the Committee on Administrative Operations, to present the committee's report. Caine told the body that his committee had been asked by the Agenda Committee to discuss the issue of changing the status of some SU Public Safety officers to Peace Officers, and report the results of their discussion to the Senate. He said that after much deliberation, the committee had voted unanimously to endorse the move to peace officer status. In the discussion, the following questions were raised:
- Are there plans for transparency, e.g., a board, where the public could make complaints, raise concerns, etc.? [Chief Hall replied that there were plans for revising the policy manual, a meeting with Syracuse Police Dept. (SPD), a memo, of understanding, plus a review committee.]
- Have there been incidents of students having weapons? [Hall: 23 in 2003, 10 in the residence halls; 22 in 2003, 11 in residence halls, 8 guns, mainly pellet guns.]
- How will arming SU Public Safety officers help? [Chancellor referred her question to the debate on the motion later in the meeting.]
- How extensive was your research before coming to agreement on endorsing the plan? Did you hear from any other institutions that had had trouble (e.g., SUNY-Binghamton), or nationally? Did you hear from anyone else but Executive Director of Government Relations Beth Rougeux and Public Safety Chief Marlene Hall?
- Did the committee review the research done in 1997 when Public Safety officers were given batons and pepper spray?
Prof. Nahmin Horwitz rose to make the following motion on behalf of the Agenda Committee:
that the University Senate supports the plan to change some SU Public Safety personnel to Peace Officer status.
In the discussion, the following issues were raised, including a request for reasons why arming officers outweighed the negative aspects of such arming. The Chancellor called Chief Hall, who referred to her past experience, giving some statistics on domestic violence calls and vehicle stops, and said there was a trend in the past couple years of increasing numbers of crimes against persons, that such offenders tended to avoid areas where it was known that there were peace officers, and asserted that SU peace officers would have a better partnership with the SPD. A senator then rose to make a motion to amend the main motion, adding
that the University proceed with new functions for its Public Safety personnel insofar as these new functions can be carried out without arming officers with guns.
The motion was seconded. In the discussion, observations made included:
- that arming public safety officers would change the atmosphere of campus from a 'no arms zone' to an 'arms zone';
- that giving officers guns would increase the change of accidents; that there was no demonstrated need for guns;
- that arming public safety officers seemed part of a larger pattern of escalation of violence against those who disagreed with us.
After several other senators had spoken for and against the amendment, a senator rose to make a motion to close debate, which was seconded and carried. The motion to amend was defeated. Discussion on the main motion continued, with one senator pointing out that the atmosphere on campus had already changed, that he remembered the days when campus police had carried guns, in cars marked by red lights. Another said that what the Senate had heard was basically a sales pitch, and what was needed was worst case scenarios. After a senator called for the vote, the body voted in favor of the motion endorsing peace officer status. Another senator made a motion to adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Teresa Gilman
University Senate Recorder
|
