Minutes for November 13, 2002

A meeting of the University Senate was held at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, November 13, 2002, in Maxwell Auditorium.

Present were: Chancellor Shaw; Senators: Anderson, Armstrong, Backx, Barth, Bender, Bennett, Bernard, Bhatia, Biklen, Bogucz, Breese, Brown (A.N.), Brown (H.), Brzozowski, Buissereth, Burdick, Byrne, Caine, Caldwell, Carter, Carty, Cihon, Cooper, Cordova, Cote-Arsenault, Crowston, Curtis, deBerly, Dent, Diaz, Dimon, Donovan, Dudczak, Dunn, Easton, Ellison, Faiola, Floyd, Flusche, Freund, Gates, Gilman, Gold, Goode, Gorovitz, Graham, Graves, Griffin, Hamilton, Hensel, Himley, Hinchman, Hogan, Hollenback, Horacek, Horwitz, Hovendick, Kelly, Kenn, Kinsey, Kosar, Kutcher, Lantier, Letterman (M.), Letterman (R.), Levin, Lipson, Lloyd, McGee, Maghran, Maroney, Martin, Moody, Morris, Mosher, Mulconry, Murphy, Murray, Newton, Olson, O'Rourke, Palmer, Peck, Pellow, Perdue, Potter, Robertson, Rosenzweig, Rubinstein, Schiff, Schneid, Schweizer, Seale, Seibert, Sellars, Sen, Serpico, Sherman, Simonds, Siow, Smith, Spencer, Spina, Strodel, Thau, Thompson, Thomson, Toth, Trento, Tucker, Tussing, Urtz, Van Gulick, Velu, Waddy, Wadley, Ware (B.), Ware (E.), Wasylenko, Watts, Weaver, Webber, Wells, Williams, Wolf, Zacharia, Zinszer

Presiding Officer: Chancellor Kenneth Shaw

       On motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes of the University Senate meeting of 16 October 2002, as distributed. The Chancellor then called Prof. Nahmin Horwitz, who reported for the Agenda Committee, as follows:

• notice of a proposal to amend the Senate bylaws, changing the charge of the AFT committee, to include investigation of sexual harassment cases, was given, and will be voted on at the December 4th meeting;

• comment that the motion on the School of Nursing had been placed early on the agenda because many who had wished to had not been able to speak at the October meeting;

• a motion that debate on the motion re the Nursing School be ended at 5:30, and the vote taken at that time. The motion was seconded.

       The Chancellor called Prof. Louise Phelps, who presented the report of the Committee on Academic Affairs, which included a recommendation to support the motion to close the Nursing School. Prof. Phelps summarized the committee's report on the Vice Chancellor's motion to close the School of Nursing, and said that the committee had devoted seven regular meetings to the careful consideration of the Vice Chancellor's proposal, including written commentary from Nursing students, faculty, and parents, as well as from other faculty, alumni, and members of the local community. She said the committee was persuaded that due to stringent limitations in resources, SU's situation required a policy of focusing on areas of strength. She said that because of persistent enrollment and faculty concerns in the School of Nursing, and because substantial funds would be required to continue the school, its closing was a sad necessity, and the committee had voted unanimously in favor of the Vice Chancellor's proposal.

In the discussion, the many statements made and questions raised included:

• that there had been no faculty dialogue prior to the recommendation, that there was no academic reason for the closure of the School, that there was a great need for baccalaureate nursing programs countrywide, locally, in the military, and elsewhere;

• that the process used had led to confusion and bad feeling, and that many still wondered why the school was being closed;

• that the community relations aspect of the issue was not emphasized;

• that there had been no reference to the College of Human Services and Health Professions (HSHP), no documentation in the report re the college as a whole;

• that the reasons for terminating the nursing programs were sound, that the Vice Chancellor was doing what her job called for;

• that the strong should help the weak, and thereby all would survive, and all benefit;

• How did it happen that a short time after the school was merged into a new college that its programs were being discontinued? Why wasn't that done at the time of the merger, when it might have made sense?

• In response to a query, the Budget Director John Hogan clarified the methodology used for the financial data, saying that the Nursing budget was $2.54 M when it went into HSHP ($2.26M after Dean Pollard used some), and that it was still there, and a portion of it had been assigned to a central fund ($.8M), but that $1.8M was marked for Nursing, and available to them;

• concern expressed that the faculty at baccalaureate nursing programs across the country was aging, that there were not enough younger faculty members to fill the ranks;

• observation that how bad news was presented gave opportunities, but that the way the nursing closing had been handled had been harmful, its suddenness not appropriate;

• suggestion that senators think of what might be next for closing;

• senator asked if the College of Human Services and Health Professions was viable, in light of the loss of Nursing;

• senator commented that he was not as sanguine about the prospects of the HSHP as others seemed to be;

• comment that the closing was premature.

Sometime around 5:30, the Chancellor said that it was time for the vote, and a senator rose to move that the vote be by ballot. The motion was seconded, and lost. The Chancellor asked senators to stand for the vote on the motion, the ayes first, followed by the nays. The motion concurring in the Vice Chancellor's proposal to close the School of Nursing passed.

       The Chancellor called Prof. Elizabeth Toth, who presented the report of the Committee on Curricula, with one correction, the withdrawal new course ECS 375, on page 1. The report included a motion to approve: new courses in the College of Engineering and Computer Science and the School of Public Communications; changes in Engineering and Computer Science, Management, and Public Communications; drops from Engineering and Computer Science and Public Communications. A senator rose to object to wording in the description of one of the changes, on p. 9: TRF 592, saying that it was not clear to him what was meant by "Exploitation." That course change was also withdrawn from the report, to be rewritten and presented later. The motion carried.

       The Chancellor called on Prof. Ernest Hemphill, who presented a report from the Committee on Instruction, which was a preview of the proposed 2004-9 academic calendar. He asked senators to send their comment and suggestions to the calendar committee, and told senators that, beginning on November 22nd, there would be a web site whose address was: http://cstl.syr.edu/registrar.

       The Chancellor called Prof. Pat Longstaff, who presented the report of the Budget committee, which included the fall budget revision and a multi-year budget forecast. She began by asking members of the Budget committee to stand and be recognized, and those that were present did so. She then gave a brief explanation of the budget process, pointed out the report's highlights, and asked if there were any comments or questions. A senator asked whether the Budget committee ought not be looking at where funds could be reallocated. Longstaff said that that was not in the committee's purview. Another senator asked why the full budget, and how it supported the Academic Plan, was not published. The Chancellor responded that if the senator told the Budget committee what specific information he wanted, that it could be put on the web.

       Under old business, the Chancellor reported that the legal situation with ROTC had not changed, that "Don't ask, don't tell" was the policy of the current administration. He said that the status of the Solomon Amendment was unchanged from last year, that as amended it excluded financial aid from punitive action, and the restrictions still applied to all other federal funds if military recruiting or ROTC was barred from a campus. He said the law school was under the jurisdiction of the restrictions but that, according to the US Military, it was in compliance. The Chancellor concluded his report by saying that the ACE General Counsel continued to search for an appropriate judicial mechanism to redress the issue, and that if a judicial solution seemed unachievable, ACE would seek legislative remediation as soon as there appeared to be a chance of a fair hearing. A senator asked for a time frame, and the Chancellor said that there had been no change in at least 10 years.

       There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Teresa Gilman
University Senate Recorder

University Senate Office 104 Steele Hall Telephone (315)443-2254 For questions, comments or problems regarding this website, please contact our webmaster:kmvetter@syr.edu © 1995 - 2008 Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244 (315) 443-1870 syracuse web site design: CustomWebHelp.com