Minutes for March 25, 2009

A meeting of the University Senate was held at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 March 2009, in Maxwell Auditorium.

Present were: Chancellor Cantor; Senators Alston, Anderson, Arnold, Breese, Carter, Carty, Cihon, Clark, Cochren, Cooper, Dobrowolski, Dudczak, Estefan, Evnas, Faiola, Gallacher, Golia, Greenberg, Heintz,Hollenback, Hurd, Isik, Judge, Keck, Kwasnik, Lee, Lipson, London, Lore, MacInnes, Mager, Marcoccia, Marrero, McClure (R.), McCoubrey, Mohanty, O'Rourke, Rubinstein, Rupert, Russell, Schell, Sherman, Smith (C.R.), Spina, Srinivas, Stonecash, Strodel, Tankersley, Teres, Thorin, Tucker, Van Gulick, Veley, Walsh, Ware (B.), Ware (E.), Warren, Wasylenko, Webber, Wolfe, Wright.

Presiding officer: Chancellor Nancy Cantor

The Chancellor called the meeting to order, and called on Prof. Hub Brown to present the revised motion from the Academic Affairs committee and field questions about the report. Prof. Brown highlighted each change that had been made in the amended motion since the meeting of March 18th. In the discussion, several members rose to praise the committee for its work, to comment, and to suggest changes, including a motion that the following language be added to 2.33 and constitute the second last paragraph:

The solicitation of letters from close colleagues/collaborators, former teachers or graduate advisors, or other like individuals is discouraged to minimize conflicts of interest. If such individuals are included in the roster of reviewers, their presence and impartiality must be explained in the dossier.

The candidate should be given the opportunity to nominate external reviewers, and that list should contain enough names to allow choice on the part of the committee and anonymity for the final roster of reviewers. The committee should nominate its own separate list of potential nominees, and the final roster of reviewers should feature a majority of reviewers from the committee roster. Motion seconded, and approved.

Other comments and suggestions form the floor included:

• that the word "should" seemed to be used a lot in the document;

• that the second sentence of 2.32 was ambiguous, i.e., "This review is meant to assess progress toward tenure with substantial formative and evaluative comments to be delivered in a written letter that will be placed in the college and Academic Affairs files upon completion (and subject to Dean and Vice Chancellor review) and in a meeting with the candidate to discuss contract renewal, and advise on future activities.";

• that the sentence should be divided into three separate sentences,

• that the sentence could end after the right parent

After several members had spoken in favor of various revisions of the sentence, the Vice Chancellor rose to make a motion to amend the proposal, removing the entire section 2.32. The motion to amend was seconded, and carried. The Chancellor deemed the body ready to vote on the main motion and called for the vote. The motion carried.

Prof. Teres then thanked those who had worked on the proposal over the course of the several years of its making by reading a list of their names, which included: past committee chairwoman Louise Phelps; current chairman Larry Elin; committee members: Bruce Abbey; Carol Lipson; Janine Bernard; Mark Heller; Doug McClure; Jeff Stonecash; Bob Van Gulick; Kal Alston; Eric Spina. The body applauded.

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 - 2009 Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244 (315) 443-1870 syracuse web site design: CustomWebHelp.com