|
 |
Minutes for December 3, 2003
A meeting of the University Senate was held at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 December 2003, in Maxwell Auditorium.
Present were: Chancellor Shaw; Senators: Alcoff, Apjohn, Bennett, Beran, Bernard, Bhatia (T.), Biklen (D.), Biklen (S.), Bogucz, Boroujerdi, Breese, Brown (A.), Caine, Carty, Cihon, Crowston, de Berly, Diaz, Donovan, Dudczak, Elin, Ellison, Floyd, Flusche, Freund, Gensemer, Gilman, Glauser, Graham, Greenberg, Himley, Hogan, Hollenback, Horwitz, Hudson, Irving, Kelly, Kenn, Kornfilt, Kosar, LeGay, LaGraff, Landau, Lantier, Legaspi, Letterman (M.), Letterman (R.), MacInnes, Marcoccia, Mason, Massey, McGee, McKay, Mosher, Mulconry, Murphy, Newler, O'Rourke, Peck, Pellow, Penza, Phillips, Poulin, Robertson, Rosenzweig, Sandberg, Sanford, Schiff, Schwarz, Sherman, Smith (D.), Spina, Strodel, Thomson, Thorley, Tinney, Toth, Trento, Tussing, Urtz, Van Gulick, Vidali, Wadley, Wallwork, Ware (B.), Ware (E.), Weaver, Webber, Williams, Wolf, Yao, Zacharia.
Presiding Officer: Chancellor Kenneth Shaw
The Chancellor called the meeting to order, and proposed that the minutes of the November 12th meeting be approved as distributed. They were approved. He then called Prof. Nahmin Horwitz to present the report of the Agenda Committee. Horwitz reported that Prof. Mike Wasylenko had recently reported to the Agenda Committee on the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), that the steering committee of COIA had drafted a statement on ethics, which the Agenda Committee had referred to the Committee on Athletic Policy for review and recommendation. He further reported that the Agenda Committee had asked the Budget committee to include in its January report information on the costs of the Department of Public Safety making the transition from public safety officer to peace officer. He said that the Committees on Administrative Operations and Student Life had also been asked to discuss the matter of peace officer status and to report their recommendations to the Senate before February, and that after the committees had made their reports, the Agenda Committee intended to make a motion re: the change in status.
The Chancellor called Ms. Judy O'Rourke, co-chair of the Committee on Honorary Degrees, to present the committee's report. He asked that all non-senators leave the auditorium while the Senate discussed and voted on the proposed nominations, and that members of the Agenda Committee invite them back inside afterward. Because his was one of the names placed in nomination, he vacated the chair, turning the meeting over to Vice Chancellor Freund for the discussion and vote.
In the discussion, several questions were raised and observations made, including:
- whether there were any names from previous year's nominations that could be added to the list. [O'Rourke responded in the affirmative];
- comment that there seemed to be a lot of in-house nominations, which served to devalue the honorary degree;
- Were there any non-SU nominations? [Committee co-chair Eric Spina told the body that there were, but that the list presented represented a committee decision.];
- question whether the list represented the four best candidates, and what the options were for adding to the list [Spina responded that the committee had decided to focus on inside candidates.]
- comment that there should be a mix of external and internal candidates;
- observation that honorary degrees were a way to connect with the world outside SU, that it was disquieting to have such a narrow selection;
- comment that the list of nominees didn't bother him, but that the deadline for nominating was rather soon in the semester.
The motion to accept the slate as presented carried. A senator rose to make a motion, that the Committee on Honorary Degrees explore the possibility of there being any additional candidates for honorary degrees that should be considered for the 2004 commencement. The motion was seconded, and passed.
The Chancellor returned to the chair, bringing the non-senators back in with him, and called Prof. Elizabeth Toth to present the report of the Committee on Curricula, which included a motion to approve new courses, changes and drops in the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Visual and Performing Arts. The motion carried.
The Chancellor called Prof. Eric Schiff, who presented the report of the Budget committee, which included a motion, as follows:
The University Senate endorses a policy change to charge future retired employees, age 65-69, a health insurance premium at the same rate as for active employees and retirees aged 55-65. However, current employees and retirees who have attained age 55 by January 1, 2004 would be "grand fathered" under the present policy, which calls for no premium for retirees aged 65-69. This endorsement is contingent on the understanding that the savings to the University, effective 2004-5 and beyond, from this change in policy will be retained as employee compensation. This endorsement is also based on the expectation that serious consideration will be given--within a framework that does not exceed the savings generated by the proposed premium charge--to designing a retiree health benefit option that extends protections for retired employees beyond age 69.
In the discussion of the motion, the following questions were raised and comments made:
- How many persons are affected? [Hogan: c.300]
- comment that the wording wasn't clear; question whether it was the case that monies would fund benefits for retired employees [Chancellor responded that he was reluctant to say yes, as that might tie the hands of his Health Care Advisory Committee.]
Services committee cochair Linda Straub rose and reported that the Committee on Services to the Faculty and Staff endorsed the Budget committee motion, but proposed a motion to amend it, as follows:
- Adding paragraph:This endorsement is also based upon the
expectation that serious consideration will be given to designing a retirement health benefit option that includes a sliding scale to determine premiums paid by retirees.
The motion was seconded. After some discussion, the motion to amend was defeated. The body then voted to approve the Budget committee motion as presented.
The Chancellor called Director of Public Safety Marlene Hall, who had been invited to report to the Senate on her area. Ms. Hall began by introducing Executive Director for Government Relations Beth Rougeux and Syracuse Police Department Deputy Chief Mike Heenan. Ms. Rougeux gave a brief rundown of the Public Safety Department's recent history, mentioning that in 1995 their officers got enhanced powers, that in 2001 an external review indicated that more was needed, that in October 2003 the New York State Legislature voted to allow SU to grant peace officer status to its officers, and that many universities comparable to SU had armed their public safety officers .Ms. Hall told the Senate that a rise in the number of calls reporting serious crimes made it advisable to have peace officers at SU. She said that it would not change SU's relationship with the community and that not every public safety officer would be made a peace officer (c. 40 of the 69 officers on staff). She said that such authority could be used to enforce civil orders of protection, for example. In the question period, comments and questions included:
- that the peace officer issue was separate from that of firearms;
- question about the cost of training and equipment [Chancellor deferred to the Budget committee];
- question of whether SU would be eligible for grants for transition [Chancellor said that the Budget committee could provide more accurate information];
- would peace officer status change how Public Safety responded to calls? [Hall said it would not.]
- comment that it was unclear how discretion was affected when handling calls;
- Aren't there other ways to handle the situation other than peace officer status?
- Would peace officers have increased authority on Marshall Street? [Hall said that would have to be worked out with the Syracuse Police Department.]
- How would Public Safety deal with the loss of personnel during training of peace officers? [Hall said it could be done during the summer when less coverage was needed.]
- Would peace officers be distinguished from other officers in some way? [Hall said that they would.]
- Would response time be quicker with peace officers? [Hall said yes, and that they could also use lights and sirens.]
Agenda Committee chairman Nahmin Horwitz told the body that the Agenda Committee had asked two Senate committees (Administrative Operations and Student Life) to review the matter and report their recommendations by February. He also said that in order to have an informed vote on the matter, the Senate would need to have accurate information about the costs involved in granting peace officer status to some of SU's public safety officers. The Chancellor said that it was reasonable to assume start-up costs of $300,000 and to ask the Budget committee to come up with the figures for what it would cost to have Syracuse Police take up the slack if peace officer status was not granted.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Teresa Gilman
University Senate Recorder
|
