The State University of New York 

Faculty Senate Bulletin  2004 No. 1 


STRENGTHENED CAMPUS-BASED ASSESSMENT 
 
Much of the University Faculty Senate’s focus during the 2003-2004 academic
year has been on the assessment issue. The June 17, 2003 Board of Trustees 
resolution on assessment required the assessment issue to be a major concern
to SUNY faculty. As you will observe, the new assessmentplan is quite 
different from the plans presented in the past. In this issue of the
Bulletin, we have presented the plan in itsentirety so that you can be fully 
informed. The proposed assessment plan will be discussed and voted up or 
down during the University Faculty Senate’s Spring Plenary meeting at Upstate 
Medical in Syracuse. The dates of the meeting are April 22-24, 2004.

The revised GEAR Review Process Guidelines and Summary documents are 
the product of the Campus-based Assessment Discussion group. The University 
Faculty Senate committee evolved into this larger System Committee following 
discussions by the Provost’s Office, Presidents of Community Colleges and 
the Faculty Council of Community Colleges. The membership of the committee 
is also included in this section of the Bulletin. 

The new enlarged System Committee looked at the concerns about System-wide 
assessment presented by faculty during last summer’s assessment meetings. 
In response, the Discussion Group crafted a proposal which addressed each 
of the concerns. The Strengthened Campus-based Assessment Proposal components 
are presented opposite the concerns which they address. 



Following the campus-based assessment plan’s development,the committee 
voted to support it without dissent. 


Concerns: Faculty are opposed to 		Proposal Components

The public reporting of assessment 		The Proposal contains language that 
This could embarrass and harm 			will prevent public dissemination of 
institutions.					assessment data for individual campuses.					
						In addition, the diversity of the 
						externally referenced measures, make public 
						comparisons virtually meaningless. 

The standardization of the curriculum.		Out of 12 Genreal Education learning areas, 
We value diversity and feel that is one		only three will be assessed using externally
indicator of a great university.		referenced measures. These areas are writing
						critical thinking, and mathematics. The 
						approaches available to campuses for the  
						external referencing of these areas are 
						both flexible and varied. 

Another layer of assessment.			The existing campus-based plan will only 		
Campuses in good faith developed		be revised. There will not be a second 
a campus-based plan. One more layer		System-based layer. 
is not necessary.

Value-added assessment. Assessment		Value-added assessment (two measurements of
is expensive enough without having to		the same learning area given at different
double the cost by assessing twice.		points in time) will be optional. 

Another unfunded mandate.			The costs of the purchase and administration
Campus budgets are already stretched		of nationally-normed measures - as well as
to the limit. We simply do not have the		the National Survey of Student Engagement
resources to add another assessment		or the Community College Survey of Student 
layer.						Engagement- will be paid for by System 
						Administration.

High stakes assessment.				The proposal does not contain any examples
						of "high stakes	assessment” (e.g. a minimum 
						level of achievement that a student must 
						demonstrate in order to advance).

Campus budgets being tied to			Campus budgets will not in any way be linked
assessment results.				to assessment results. 



STRENGTHENED CAMPUS-BASED ASSESSMENT ? SUMMARY

Background

It is not the intent of this summary to
retrace the University’s many efforts over
the years to develop a high quality assessment
program. As we all know, colleagues
have been engaged for a long time in serious
and conscientious efforts to develop
State University Assessment Initiative that
represents both “best assessment practices”
and our own “best thinking.” We can be
very proud of what has been accomplished
to date.
In its final report, the Provost’s Advisory
Task Force on the Assessment of Student
Learning Outcomes underscored its belief
that assessment serves two complementary
functions in higher education today:
‘Assessment as improvement’ and ‘Assessment
as accountability,’ and that both of
these functions have an appropriate place
in the SUNY Assessment Initiative and can
strengthen the University’s institutions and
the System as a whole.
In recent years, we have struggled to
try to find a way to address both of these
goals in a way that faculty and stakeholders
agree meets their concerns and expectations.
After many attempts, we believe that we
have discovered an approach that is based
on good assessment practice, that addresses
our faculty’s many legitimate concerns, and
that meets System goals as expressed by
the Chancellor.

The Elements of a Proposal

We believe that proposal for a strengthened
campus-based assessment process could
structured as follows:
1. Existing campus-based assessment
plans need only be revised and incorporated
in the proven and ongoing GEAR
process. There would be no need for a
second, System layer of assessment.

2. Only the learning outcomes in three
foundational areas: Mathematics, Basic
Communication (Written), and Critical
Thinking (Reasoning), should be assessed
incorporating external measures1 and
the assessment of these “building blocks”
of general education could be done in
various ways that would provide real
flexibility for campuses.	

3. An instrument such as the National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE),
the Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE), or a revised,
extended Student Opinion Survey
(or similar measures) could be used to
understand the campus academic
climate and how that might relate to
the assessment results. This analysis of
assessment results could be incorporated
into campus procedures.

4. System Administration should cover
the cost of all externally referenced
measures and surveys for a representative
sample of students.

5. Value-added assessment should be
optional.

6. The proposed policy should contain
language which will safeguard assessment
data from misuse.

Proposed Revisions to the GEAR Guidelines

To incorporate these elements into the
GEAR process, very few changes are
actually needed:

Re “externally-referenced measures,” to
GEAR Criterion #3, add the following:
• For the learning outcomes in Mathematics,
Basic Communication (Written), and
Critical Thinking (Reasoning), are externally
referenced measures of the campus’s
choice – either nationally- or SUNYnormed
– included?

• For campuses opting to attempt to determine
the growth in learning achieved by
SUNY undergraduates in some or all of
general education (“value-added’), is
there an adequate description of when
measures will be administered and how
problems commonly related to pre- and
post-testing (e.g., student motivation,
attrition) will be controlled?

Every effort has been made to describe
“externally referenced measures” in a way
that provides for meaningful external referencing
while providing maximum flexibility
for campuses. Not only will this address
the longstanding concern of faculty that no
proposal should promote a “one size fits
all” approach, but it also renders any attempt		
to engage in inter-campus comparisons
essentially meaningless. Campuses will
continue to use their current approved
assessment plans for all of the SUNY-GER
learning outcomes. For the learning outcomes
in the three “building blocks,” there
are a number of ways in which campuses
can meet the requirement for “externallyreferenced”
measures: for example, through
the use of nationally-normed tests such as
the Academic Profile, the California Critical
Thinking Skills Test or the Quant-Q, or by
using SUNY-normed measures in lieu of
nationally-normed measures, using one of
two approaches:
i. A locally developed instrument that
measures the learning outcomes in one
or more of these three areas and that is
demonstrated to correlate statistically
(i.e., have concurrent validity) with
nationally-normed measures.
ii. A locally developed instrument that
measures the learning outcomes in one
or more of these three areas that is
reviewed and approved by GEAR. As
part of this process, GEAR will rely on
discipline-based panels of distinguished
SUNY faculty that will develop standards
and rubrics campuses may use to assess
student performance. Campuses choosing
to use their own standards and
rubrics must demonstrate to GEAR that
their standards and rubrics are essentially
equivalent to those developed by the
discipline-based panel.
Campuses opting for this approach would
be expected to periodically provide GEAR
with samples of student work for each
standard of student performance, to be
reviewed to ensure ongoing validity and
reliability of the measure. Note that it is
also possible to combine these approaches:
for example, a campus might choose to use
the CCTST for Critical Thinking and
SUNY-normed measures for Mathematics
and Basic Communication (Written).
Re the “campus academic environment,” add
a new GEAR Criterion (as #6) to:
• Ask that "Mechanisms for assessing the
campus academic environment are
described."

Re student involvement, to address the need
for greater student involvement:
• Revise GEAR Criterion #7 – related to
governance – to require that the plans
show evidence of student involvement
in the development of revisions to the
assessment plan.
Safeguards re the Utilization and
Reporting of Assessment Results
To ensure that assessment results are
used appropriately, it is essential that this
process be guided by a set of principles
that will safeguard assessment data, along
the following lines:
• Assessment results will never be used to
punish, publicly compare, or embarrass
students, faculty, courses, programs,
departments, or institutions either individually
or collectively.
• Assessment results will never be used to
make public comparisons among groups
of students based on gender, race, ethnicity,
or other demographic factors. A basic
value of the State University is that all

students can learn and the University’s
programs are intended to provide educational
opportunities to students as individuals,
not by virtue of their membership
within a particular demographic category.
Given the vast diversity that exists among
SUNY campuses – reflecting their unique
missions and constituent groups – the
public dissemination of assessment data
for accountability purposes will take
place only through aggregate reporting
for SUNY as a whole and by sector
(Doctoral Degree-granting Institutions,
Comprehensive Colleges, Colleges of
Technology and Community Colleges).
Campus-specific assessment data will be
used for confidential in-house discussions
as part of the ongoing improvement
process, whether between faculty and
administrators on a particular campus
or between campus representatives and
System Administration officials.
Faculty support for, and participation in
this initiative is predicated on the responsible
and collegial adherence to these
principles.

Costs
The costs of the purchase and scoring of
nationally-normed measures2 – as well as
for the NSSE or CCSSE – should be paid
for by System Administration for Stateoperated/
funded institutions and community
colleges, based on a sample size of up
to 20% of the undergraduate student body
on a three-year cycle.
Next Steps
System Administration has indicated that
its goal is to move assessment forward
through consensus and the Chancellor has
said that if a faculty proposal met his
expectations and has the support of governance,
he would be willing to consider
revisions to the June 17 Board resolution.
__________
1When employing a “level of achievement”
methodology (as distinct from a “value-added”
methodology).
2Currently estimated at under $200,000 for the
entire system.

STRENGTHENED CAMPUS-BASED ASSESSMENT ? DISCUSSION GROUP
Christopher Dahl, President, SUNY Geneseo
Carol Eaton, President, Clinton Community
College
Thomas Finch, Dean of Academic Affairs,
North Country Community College
Patricia Francis, Professor of Psychology,
Executive Assistant to the President,
SUNY Cortland
Wayne Fulks, Professor of Liberal Arts,
Sullivan County Community College
Robert Golden, Provost and Vice President
for Academic Affairs, SUNY Plattsburgh
Norman Goodman, Professor of Sociology,
Stony Brook University
Stephanie Gross, Student Assembly President,
SUNY Board of Trustees
Daniel Hayes, President, Finger Lakes
Community College
Joseph Hildreth, President, University Faculty
Senate, Professor of Art, SUNY Potsdam
Appendix
Nationally-normed Measures
There are many nationally-normed measures available that are designed to assess learning
outcomes in Mathematics, Basic Communications (Written), and Critical Thinking
(Reasoning). The table below shows a number of examples of some which campuses
may find useful:
Discipline AP CAAP CCTST CRA QUANT-Q
Mathematics ? ? ?
Basic Communications (Written) ? ?
Critical Thinking (Reasoning) ? ? ? ? ?
AP Academic Profile, Educational Testing Service (www.ets.org/hea/acpro/)
CAAP Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency, ACT (www.act.org/caap/)
CCTST The California Critical Thinking Skills Test, INSIGHT Assessment
(www.insightassessment.com/test-cra.html)
CRA California Reasoning Appraisal, INSIGHT Assessment
(www.insightassessment.com/test-cra.html)
QUANT-Q Quant-Q, INSIGHT Assessment (www.insightassessment.com/test-cra.html
Costs
The costs of the purchase and scoring of nationally-normed measures – as well as for
the National Survey of Student Engagement or the Community College Survey of
Student Engagement – will be paid for by System Administration for State-operated/
funded institutions and community colleges, based on a sample size of up to 20% of
the undergraduate student body on a three-year cycle.
SUNY-normed Measures
Campuses wishing to include SUNY-normed measures in lieu of nationally-normed
measures in Mathematics, Basic Communication (Written), and Critical Thinking
(Reasoning) may use one of two approaches:
1. A locally developed instrument that measures the learning outcomes in one or
more of these three areas and that is demonstrated to correlate statistically (i.e., have
concurrent validity) with nationally-normed measures, including those listed above.
2. A locally developed instrument that measures the learning outcomes in one or more
of these three areas that is reviewed and approved by the GEAR Group. As part of
this process, GEAR will rely on discipline-based panels of distinguished SUNY faculty
that will develop standards and rubrics campuses may use to assess student performance.
Campuses choosing to use their own standards and rubrics must demonstrate
to GEAR that their standards and rubrics are essentially equivalent to those
developed by the discipline-based panel.
Campuses opting for this second approach would also be expected to periodically provide
GEAR with samples of student work for each standard of student performance, to
be reviewed by GEAR to ensure ongoing validity and reliability of the measure. GEAR
will provide campuses with feedback and, possibly, recommendations regarding any
scoring adjustments that may be required.
Mixing and Matching
It is also possible to combine these approaches: for example, a campus may choose to
use the CCTST for Critical Thinking and SUNY-normed measures for Mathematics and
Basic Communication (Written).



Faculty Senate Bulletin
THE STATE UNIVERSITY
OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Co-Editors
JOSEPH A. HILDRETH
Potsdam – President
VINCENT J. ACETO
retired Albany
NORMAN GOODMAN
Stony Brook
MARVIN LAHOOD
Buffalo State
CAROL DONATO
Faculty Senate Assistant
Editorial Board
(Executive Committee)
JOSEPH A. HILDRETH
Potsdam – President
JAMES MCELWAINE
Purchase – VP/Secretary
GEORGE TORTORA
Stony Brook
PETER KNUEPFER
Binghamton
TIMOTHY PHILLIPS
Cortland
KATHLEEN JACQUETTE
Farmingdale
ANNE DONNELLY
Cobleskill
DONALD STEVEN
System Administration
KENNETH O’BRIEN
Brockport
(Campus Governance Leader)

President’s Corner

Budget
On January 20, 2004, Governor Pataki
presented his budget for the new year. SUNY
did fairly well compared to other state
agencies which received a 5-10% cut. SUNY’s
year-to-year budget was actually up 6 million
dollars. This is because the Governor’s
budget picks up the cost of employee
benefits. You probably remember that last
year these negotiated increases were
approved but not funded by the state.
Last year SUNY’s portion of the capital
plan (the part used for the construction
and maintenance of academic building)
was not released by the legislature. This
problem was created in part by the dispute
over how specific each campus allocation
was to be reported. SUNY wanted to report
the total dollar amount assigned to each
campus in order to provide for some flexibility.
This year, SUNY has agreed to specify
the dollar value of each project per campus.
As a result, the System expects the full 1.8
billion (which is 300 million more than
last year) to be released.
Governor Pataki has established a 350
million dollar additional fund for capital
construction. For this money, SUNY must
compete with the private colleges of New
York State. It will be administered by a
board that is composed of four appointments
by the legislature and three by the
governor. Applications will require a 3 to 1
campus match. Neither SUNY nor the
independent colleges will be able to receive
more than 2/3rds of the total fund.
Finally, Chancellor King has requested
an additional 50 million dollars from the
Legislature. If these funds are received,
campuses can expect to receive full funding
from the Budget Allocation Process
formula (BAP).

Tuition
Chancellor King is proposing a small,
yearly tuition increase which would be
linked to the percentage of increase in the
Higher Education Price Index. Based on
past increases, this would amount to $150-
$200 per year. This could only happen if
the State would agree to maintain state
support at its current level and to fund
negotiated collective bargaining increases.
This proposal is very similar to the University
Faculty Senate recommendations
found in the report of the Task Force on
Rational Fiscal Policy: Pathway to Excellence
(January, 2003). The UFS endorsed
this report without dissent.
One interesting feature of the Chancellor’s
proposal is to keep SUNY tuition at the
same level for 4 years for each entering
class. If this were to happen, a student
entering SUNY in the fall of 2005 could
expect to pay the same tuition for all four
years. Tuition would go up for the students
who first entered in the fall of 2006, but it
would remain at that level for four years.
New SUNY Allocation Formula
Discussions are in a very early stage for a
new funding formula for SUNY. This new
formula would replace the BAP process
which has been used for the past few years.
BAP was designed for a steady or increasing
New York State budget. It does not
work when the budget decreases as it did
last year. As a result, the formula produced
significant increases for some campuses
and significant decreases for others. In
order to be fair, SUNY System Administration
decided to take a portion of the
increases and give them to the campuses
with decreases.
SUNY needs a funding formula that will
work with a decreased, steady or increased
budget. The past funding formula was performance
driven. The formula drivers were
enrollment, sponsored research and retention.
When the new committee funding
formula is established, the University
Faculty Senate will be represented. Campus
budgets for 2004-2005 are expected
to remain the same as last year. Once the
new formula is established, it will be
phased in gradually.
Assessment
The campus-based assessment designed for
improvement is mostly complete. Of the 57
campuses that are eligible, only 2 or 3 have
not been approved by the General Educa-
tion Assessment Review group. Based on
the responses presented at the recent SUNY
General Education Assessment Conference,
campus-based assessment for improvement
is a success, a point echoed by the SUNY
Provost when he declared at the Senate’s
Winter Plenary in Oswego that “campusbased
assessment was a huge success.”
A proposal which calls for a revision of
existing campus-based plans will be discussed
and voted up or down at our April
22-24, 2004 Spring Plenary meeting. This
proposal, along with an explanatory introduction,
is presented in its entirety in this
issue. Please take the time to examine this
new plan. It is very important that the
Senate makes an informed vote on this
important issue.
Levin Institute
I met with President Garrick Utley in order
to discuss the current situation of the Levin
Institute. During our meeting we discussed
the mission, funding, faculty and goals for
the Institute. Currently, the Faculty Senate
has two representatives on the curriculum
committee of the Institute. In addition, we
have appointed a faculty member for the
Institute’s search committee for the Academic
Vice-President. President Utley will
address the University Faculty Senate during
our Spring Plenary at Upstate Medical
in April. SUNY Upstate Medical is located
in Syracuse, NY.
Teacher Education
The implementation of the “New Vision in
Teacher Education” initiative is mostly
complete. Of the 15 campuses with teacher
certification programs, most have completed
curricular changes required for the
program. The basic features of the New
Vision initiative are:
1. 100 hours of pre-student teaching field
experience.
2. 75 days of student teaching.
3. Major or concentration directly related
to the elementary curriculum.
4. Jointly registered student teacher program.
5. Alternative teacher education program.
The teacher education template is nearly
complete. It is designed to assist students
transferring from our 2-year colleges into
teacher education programs. In order for
the template to be used, a two-year college
will need to have its teacher education
program approved. In addition, SUNY is
developing a web site which aligns 2-year
college courses with appropriate upper
division courses. The experimental web
site is basically an on-line articulation
agreement.
Art Exhibitions
At this time we have organized, displayed
and hosted five SUNY-wide student art
exhibits. The current exhibition is the
2004 Spring SUNY Student Art Exhibition.
For this exhibit we received 105 works
from 23 campuses across the system. Our
biggest show yet. The quality of the work
was excellent. In addition, we have organized
and presented seven faculty exhibitions.
Currently, SUNY Cortland faculty
have their work on display.
Faculty Development Task Force
Provost Salins asked me to co-chair the
Faculty Development Task Force. After two
years of work and two System-wide surveys,
the Task Force is now working on the draft
of a report. The report will feature “best
practices” examples that campuses use in
their faculty development activities. The
traditional areas of research, service, continuing
growth and awards recognition
have been studied. It is hoped that the final
report will be able to be distributed to
campuses next Spring.
Faculty Misconduct in Research Policy
Finally, the University Faculty Senate has
agreed to review Chancellor King’s proposed
policy on Faculty Misconduct in Research.
The Chancellor’s policy focuses on what
should be done once a faculty researcher
has been judged to have been guilty of
misconduct in research. An example of this
would be plagiarism. It is expected that the
UFS Governance Committee will report
back to the Senate next fall.
As you can see, the University Faculty
Senate has been very busy this year. I am
most grateful to the faculty who have
unselfishly donated so much time and
energy so that we could take action on
these important issues.
Best wishes,

SUNY AT FIFTY-FIVE

Marvin LaHood, Co-Editor
Distinguished Teaching Professor,
College at Buffalo
Introduction
We believe that it is important and useful
to our colleagues to periodically summarize
the history of SUNY in order to give
perspective on where we have been, where
we are now, and where we are going.
When SUNY was established in 1948, it
was the last state university. Why so late? Its
creation even then was opposed by the private
higher education sector in New York
State and other groups. In 1862, the Morrill
Land Grant College Act gave federal land
script for the establishment of public higher
education featuring study in agriculture and
the mechanic arts. New York State decided
in 1865 to designate a new private university,
still in the planning stage, to be named
after N.Y. State Senator Ezra Cornell, as its
land grant university. The only other state to
designate a private institution (M.I.T.) as its
land grant institution was Massachusetts.
New York State did, however, support
some public higher education. By World
War II, eleven state teachers colleges had
developed from normal schools. The State
also supported eleven two-year technical or
vocational institutes, and seven specialized
colleges around the state. Additionally, New
York City had its four city colleges: Brooklyn,
City, Hunter, and Queens, restricted to city
residents. But there were no public liberal
arts programs outside New York City, no
comprehensive public doctoral and research
institutions, and no community colleges.
There were, however, regional private universities
in Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo,
and a number of private universities in the
New York City area including Columbia,
Fordham, N.Y.U., and ST. John's. The existence
of Cornell's land grant colleges, and
the City of New York's public and private
universities had impeded the development
of SUNY for decades.
To address the lack of adequate public
higher education in the state, Governor
Thomas E. Dewey and the legislature created
a blue-ribbon committee called the Temporary
Commission on the Need for a State
University chaired by Owen Young. After
eighteen months, the Young Commission
concluded that the state was critically short
of low-cost, geographically accessible institutions
of higher education. As a result, the
State University of New York was established
on 1 July 1948. Alvin Eurich was chancellor;
Thomas E. Dewey, governor. Initially it
brought together thirty-two units. Its core
consisted of the eleven “state teacher's colleges’:
Albany, Brockport, Buffalo State,
Cortland, Fredonia, Geneseo, New Paltz,
Oneonta, Oswego, Plattsburgh, and Potsdam.
Eventually three more units were added to
what were later known as “university colleges”:
Purchase (1967), Old Westbury,
operated as an experimental program from
1965-1967, and begun permanently in the
fall of 1971, and Empire State (1971).
SUNY, from its beginnings in 1948,
also included six colleges of agriculture
and technology: Alfred, Canton, Cobleskill,
Delhi, Farmingdale, and Morrisville.
The five “statutory colleges” at two private
universities were also included when
SUNY was born: Ceramics at Alfred U.;
Agriculture and Life Sciences (originally
Agriculture), Human Ecology (originally
Home Economics), Industrial and Labor
Relations, and Veterinary Medicine at Cornell.
The College of Environmental Science
and Forestry affiliated with Syracuse U. and
the Maritime College (now Maritime Academy)
were also original members of SUNY,
as were five Institutes of Applied Arts and
Sciences that later became community colleges
at Binghamton (Broome), Brooklyn
(Brooklyn), Buffalo (Erie), Utica (Mohawk
Valley), and White Plains (Westchester).
Also listed in the thirty-two original
units of SUNY, although not officially transferred
over until 1950, were the Upstate
Medical University – originally the Geneva
College School of Physicians, later the Syracuse
University School of Medicine); and
the SUNY Downstate Medical Center (originally
the Long Island College of Medicine).
As time went on SUNY incorporated four
university centers. Stony Brook was begun
as a college to prepare secondary school
teachers of mathematics and the sciences
in 1957 at Oyster Bay. By 1962, moved to
Stony Brook, it began its transition into a
center. Albany, a part of the system since
1948, was designated a center in 1961. In
September of 1962 the private University at
Buffalo became SUNY Buffalo, and in 1965
Harpur College became SUNY Binghamton
(it was founded in 1946 as Triple Cities College,
an extension of Syracuse University; in
1950 it became Harpur College and was incorporated
into the State University system).
SUNY also added the College of Technology
at Utica/Rome (technically established in
1966, accepted its first students in 1969),
and the College of Optometry (1971).
SUNY eventually grew to 72 institutions:
34 state operated colleges and universities
and 38 community colleges. It became the
64 institution enterprise it now is in the
seventies when the Legislature transferred
eight of its community colleges in the New
York City area to CUNY.
SUNY Central Administration was housed
in a single room in the State Education
Department in 1948. By 1971 its thirty-four
state operated colleges and universities and
thirty-eight community colleges represented
the breadth and depth, the comprehensiveness
and intellectual acumen of one of the
greatest university systems in the world.
That growth and comprehensiveness
alone was a remarkable achievement for the
state and for the leaders, both academic and
political, who had the vision and drive to
accomplish so quickly what other states had
taken a century or more to accomplish. In a
way, however, some of that catching up was
very difficult. Research universities, especially,
take decades to develop and mature.
By the middle thirties public universities
such as California, Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin had reached the
point where they were considered among
the finest research universities in the world.
New York State never decided to develop
one flagship university as these states and
many others had done. SUNY spread its
resources over six units: the four university
centers and the two health science centers.
While in some ways thereby setting a
national trend away from a single flagship
campus, it also made it less likely that any
one unit would gain the national prominence
of a California at Berkeley. Despite these
restraints, all six research university units
have achieved a great deal of distinction.
The University at Buffalo has been elected
to membership in the elite Association of
American Universities, as has Stony Brook,
which catapulted itself into the national
spotlight by attracting internationally known
scholars and researchers and developing a
superb graduate program. Binghamton
University gained a reputation as one of the
most selective public universities for undergraduate
students in the nation. The University
at Albany has had great success in
its high-technology endeavors.
The thirteen university colleges developed
reputations that placed them in the top of
such institutions in the country. Some, like
Geneseo, attracted high achieving students
and attained a reputation for undergraduate
selectivity exceeding that of most research
universities, in the state or elsewhere. U.S.
News and World Report and other publications
listing “best value” institutions across
the country often rate a number of SUNY
institutions high on their list. Binghamton
and Geneseo have regularly ranked in the
top ten. Recently, Stony Brook has tied for
second with California, Santa Barbara, in an
objective rating of public research universities.
SUNY has graduated over 1.5 million
students, most of whom reside in New York
State. Forty percent of graduating high
school seniors in the state attend SUNY.
Before 1948 just twelve percent of high
school students in the state went to college;
now seventy-five percent attend.
SUNY has triumphed over every obstacle
in its ascent to national prominence. It has
offered across the state quality education in
every field at an affordable price. While
New York State ranks near the bottom of
the fifty states in its per capita expenditure
on public higher education, it ranks near
the top in several academic categories. This
is a story that bears repeating because the
continued success of SUNY can only be
maintained, and even enhanced, with the
continued dedication and support of all of
SUNY's employees, students, and stakeholders.
Most especially, it depends greatly
on the political advocacy, intellectual vision,
and budgetary support of the Board of
Trustees, who bear the fiduciary responsibility
for maintaining and enhancing the
quality of public higher education in New
York State. An appropriate level of support
and commitment to excellence and access
cannot be taken for granted. Thus, delineating
the problems and suggesting appropriate
solutions has been and is the focus of the
University Faculty Senate. This is no easy
task, and its success will depend on the
constructive involvement of all those concerned
within and outside the SUNY family.
Acknowledgments:
D. Bruce Johnstone, University Professor of
Higher and Comparative Education, SUNY
Buffalo.
The New York Red Book (1949, 1950, 1951,
1952).
Sixty-Four Campuses: The State University of
New York to 1985 (1985).
SUNY 2000 (1991).

FROM THE
EDITORS’ DESK
Maria Doelger, Assistant Provost for
Administration and Operations
Campus Judicial Officer
During the Spring Plenary of the University
Faculty Senate in Syracuse on Friday, April 23,
2004, there will a presentation on “Plagiarism
and ethics” sponsored by the Undergraduate
Academic Programs and Policies Committee
(UAPPC) of the Senate. The article below
describes the experience of the Campus Judicial
Officer at Stony Brook University. It is not
intended to be a comprehensive view of the
issue, as is also true of the presentation at the
Plenary Session, but to stimulate a dialogue
on the campuses of this problem that has been
increasing substantially in no small measure
as a result of the availability of computers and
search engines. The UAPPC hopes that it presentation
will encourage just such discussions.
“The Dog Ate My Works Cited Page” and
other tales from the Academic Judiciary
Michael* was the kind of student every
university loves to have. He was poised,
articulate, well-dressed, mature, and his
academic record shone with a constellation
of As. He arrived for the judiciary hearing
with organized notes and copious exhibits
with which to defend himself against an
accusation of plagiarism. The members of
the Hearing Board, used to seeing students
whose nerves and guilty consciences trip
them up, were not accustomed to such a
polished defendant. As I read over the evidence
in the case and prepared to make my
opening statements I thought that surely
there was a logical explanation, a misunderstanding
perhaps. Yet the instructor had
read Michael’s paper and was troubled by a
few passages. A search on “Google” had
turned up a paper posted on the website of
another university with striking similarities
in wording, organization and conclusions.
The paper was written by a student there
in 1997 and thus with his suspicions
mounting, the instructor was obliged to
submit the accusation of plagiarism to the
Academic Judiciary.
Michael’s defense stunned us. This
accomplished and confident student told
us that the only explanation he could give
us as to how the papers ended up being so
similar was this: he finished his paper two
weeks before it was due and stored in on
the University server. Someone must have
taken it off the server and to cover his or
her tracks posted it on this other university’s
web site with a fictitious name and date.
There could be no other explanation he
argued fervently. We were stunned. The
outlandish claim of this stellar student
stunned us. We found him guilty of academic
dishonesty and while the punishment
was surely upsetting to him, the case was
far more troublesome to us. It cast doubt
and suspicion over his entire record. Did
he really earn the grades, the accolades?
Would this young man, who told us his
dream was to go to law school, ever admit
to what we were certain was a conscious
act of plagiarism? This case stands out as
one of the most upsetting I have ever faced.
Michael’s excuse was certainly one of
the most creative I have heard. Typically
we hear that the student did not intend to
cheat, or didn’t realize what he or she was
doing was considered academic dishonesty.
Some claims are outlandish, such as the
student who tried to convince me that his
dog ate his ‘works cited’ page. But most
are predictable and frustrating to hear time
and again. Academic dishonesty is all
around us in our line of work. It is in the
news, and like other forms of cheating we
read about daily. Anecdotal evidence as
well as systematic studies like those done
by Donald McCabe of Rutgers-Newark, a
leading expert in the field, tell us that it is
on the rise. We blame the high schools for
not teaching students the importance of
academic integrity. We blame society for
glamorizing those who get ahead by
unethical means. We ignore speed limits.
We cheat on our taxes.
From my seat at the head of the hearing
table I cannot change our society, nor can
I change the moral and ethical character of
the students. But I can learn a great deal
about the types of students that end up
before me and work to put programs in
place to educate them not only about
Stony Brook’s policies regarding academic
dishonesty, but also the benefit to them of
graduating from an institution with a
reputation of integrity.
McCabe and others subscribe to what
can be called the 10/80/10 rule. Briefly
stated, it is that 10% of students will never
cheat; 10% will cheat no matter what –
but it is that middle 80% for which the
battle has to be fought, as they will decide
whether or not to cheat based on circumstance.
My own corollary to this rule,
formulated in dealing with hundreds of
accusations of academic dishonesty, is that
cheaters come in three varieties. The most
egregious are the habitual cheaters – they
will cheat no matter what or when. Then
there are the opportunistic cheaters – those
students who will cheat if given a clear
enough opportunity. But I believe the
majority fit into the category I call the panic
cheaters. These are students who do understand
that cheating is wrong, but cave into
pressure or panic and commit acts of academic
dishonesty. These are the ones I feel
for, but all groups need attention, and I
firmly believe that attention needs to come
from the ranks of the faculty, not from a
campus “Judge Judy’ like myself.
Faculty members are important players
in promoting academic integrity and
reporting acts of dishonesty. For those
habitual cheaters in our student population
the faculty serve as the witnesses to their
transgressions. These students need to be
reported and all attempts made to educate
them and try to instill in them the ideals
of integrity. If that fails, and it will in some
serious cases, then these students need to
be removed from the university. For the
opportunistic cheaters faculty hold the key
to not providing incentives or invitations to
cheat. Well-written course expectations
and course rules regarding dishonesty act
as deterrents and active involvement with
the students regarding assignments and
exams can help reduce instances of cheating.
Potential panic cheaters need to be
reminded of the importance of academic
integrity and that getting a poor grade is
not nearly as devastating as being found
guilty of academic dishonesty.
I believe that faculty involvement in the
promotion of academic integrity can be
very effective. Faculty must be forceful
about impressing upon the students the
importance of integrity in their academic
work, writing clear and detailed explanations
of their expectations and course
rules, adding measures of deterrence such
as alternate exam forms, and be willing to
report all acts of academic dishonesty so
that students can be educated and, hopefully,
avoid a more serious infraction later
in their careers. That vulnerable 80% is
counting on you to help them negotiate
their academic career with an awareness
and appreciation for honest work.
*Note: The name of the student and some
details of the case have been altered to preserve
necessary confidentiality.

2003-2004 RESOLUTIONS

To: University Faculty Senate
From: Executive Committee
Date: October 25, 2003
Subject: Regarding MOU on
Value-added Assessment
RATIONALE
Whereas, The University Faculty Senate has
long supported University-wide campusbased
assessment of General Education;
and
Whereas, The SUNY System Administration
has worked cooperatively with the University
Faculty Senate and the Faculty Council
of Community Colleges to establish the
General Education Assessment Review
(GEAR) committee to oversee the campusbased
assessment process; and
Whereas, SUNY campuses have longestablished
quality General Education
programs and implemented the GEARapproved
assessment plans, which Provost
Salins called a “huge success” and a
“remarkable accomplishment”; and
Whereas, Each SUNY campus is unique,
having different missions, admissions standards,
student populations, and means of
satisfying the SUNY General Education
requirements; and
Whereas, Accrediting bodies such as the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
recognize the diversity of campus
programs within a state system and assess
the performance of the individual campuses
and not the state-wide system; and
Whereas, National experts on assessment
(e.g., Dr. Barbara Cambridge, former
Director of Assessment for the American
Association of Higher Education, and Dr.
Peter Ewell, Senior Associate of the National
Center for Higher Education Management
Systems), and a recent report of the Institute
for Higher Education Leadership and
Policy of the California State University
have argued that academic assessment is
best done at the campus and not system
level; and
Whereas, Dr. Candace Young reported at
the 135th Plenary Meeting of the University
Faculty Senate on the nature and success of
the nationally recognized campus-based
assessment program at Truman State University;
and
Whereas, The specific requirement in the
draft Memorandum of Understanding on
Value-Added Assessment (September 26,
2003) for common measures across the
campuses of SUNY would undermine fundamental
principles of academic excellence
by discouraging pedagogical creativity and
innovation; and
Whereas, General Education occurs over a
student’s entire academic career, and since
students take individually diverse pathways
through the available educational programs,
including coursework at other institutions
of higher education, internships, and study
abroad programs, attempting to test this
diversity in the manner proposed in the
draft Memorandum of Understanding on
Value-Added Assessment (September 26,
2003) is academically unwise and
unsound; and
Whereas, The costs of such a program
would be considerable and would have
to come from SUNY’s zero-sum budget in
an economic environment that already
restricts the ability of campuses to carry
out their academic missions; and
Whereas, The June 17 Resolution on
Assessment of Student Leaning Outcomes
of the Board of Trustees has offered no academically
compelling reasons, evidence or
problems that warrant its approach to
assessment; therefore
RESOLUTION
Therefore, be it resolved that the University
Faculty Senate respectfully requests that
the Board of Trustees suspend implementation
of its June 17 Resolution on Assessment
of Student Learning Outcomes in
order to engage in a substantial dialog
among representatives of the Provost’s
Office, the Board of Trustees, and faculty
governance regarding University-wide
campus-based assessment;
Be it further resolved that the University
Faculty Senate cannot support the proposed
Memorandum of Understanding on
Value-Added Assessment dated September
26, 2003 but does support an ongoing
discussion which will produce a mutually
acceptable process of University-wide
campus-based assessment;
Be it further resolved that the University
Faculty Senate reaffirms its long-standing
commitment to University-wide campusbased
assessment, and will urge campuses
to continue to implement their GEARapproved
General Education assessment
plans; and
Be it further resolved that in the best interests
of the education of our students, and
the State University of New York, the University
Faculty Senate invites the Board of
Trustees and SUNY System Administration
to continue to discuss the assessment of
foundational skills in General Education.
This may include externally referenced
measures of the campus’s choice that provides
for campus responsibility and System
Administration oversight.
135-03-01
To: University Faculty Senate
From: Awards Committee
Date: October 25, 2003
Subject: Medallion
RATIONALE
Whereas the distinguished ranks are the
highest ranks in SUNY; and
Whereas in academic processions academics
wear regalia emblematic of their
degree and institution; and
Whereas Chancellor’s Award recipients are
honored with a medallion; and
Whereas no such visible symbol of the
distinguished ranks is currently available
RESOLUTION
Therefore, be it resolved that SUNY award an
appropriate medallion to all those who have
and will attain the rank of distinguished.
135-01-1

To: University Faculty Senate
From: Awards Committee
Date: October 25, 2003
Subject: Distinguished Service
Professor
RATIONALE
Whereas the distinguished service professorship
is the highest rank in SUNY honoring
faculty service; and
Whereas faculty governance is one of the
most important aspects of an academic
enterprise dedicated to the ideal of collegiality;
and
Whereas there is no explicit language in the
DSP guidelines indicating that service in
faculty governance is one of the criteria
that may be considered
RESOLUTION
Therefore, be it resolved that the main paragraph
in the DSP guidelines under “Criteria”
be expanded as follows: “and may
include exceptional leadership in local and
system-wide faculty governance.”
135-02-01

Awards Committee
January 31, 2004
University Faculty Senate
Outstanding Service Award
• Nominations by any member of
University Faculty Senate.
• Recipient to be chosen from nominees
by University Faculty Senate Executive
Committee.
• All persons who have worked on the
Senate are eligible.
• Executive Committee to:
• Present plaque
• Write commendation
• Plan ceremony (probably at Plenary
Friday dinner)
• Solicit letters of commendation
• Invite special guests
• Criteria established by Awards
Committee.
Resolution 136-02-01

Awards Committee
Sense of Senate Resolution
Oneonta Plenary Meeting
January 31, 2004
Recommended Uses of Distinguished
Ranks on Campus and Across System
Campus based:
• Serve as mentors for faculty.
• Take part in professional development
workshops/presentations.
• Give presentations in “distinguished
lecture series.”
• Serve on presidential advisory councils.
• Participate in campus selection of
candidates for president’s and
Chancellor’s awards, distinguished
ranks, and honorary degrees.
• Give presentations to prospective
students/parents; alumni; and to
enhance visibility of campus in
community.
System–wide:
• As visiting lecturers (all distinguished
professors will be queried as to availability
and topics-expenses to be
covered by inviting campus).
• In advisory, consultative, and representational
capacity in SUNY endeavors in
national and international relationships,
with the media, and with other colleges
and university systems.
Special attention should be given to using
Distinguished Professors in their areas of
expertise.
Resolution 136-03-01

Motion for the University Faculty Senate Meeting
January 30-31, 2004
In response to resolutions by the SUNY University Faculty Senate and the SUNY
Faculty Council of Community Colleges, the SUNY Board of Trustees has agreed to
“pause” in the implementation of their resolution of June 17, 2003 on assessment. In
addition, Chancellor King has invited the SUNY faculty governance bodies to “take the
lead in developing a draft of a revised proposal…” to present to the Board at its meeting
on January 27, 2004. Consequently, the Executive Committee recommends that the
University Faculty Senate accept Chancellor King’s offer to continue discussions on
“University-wide campus-based assessment” with the aim of developing a proposal on
assessment that is acceptable to the SUNY Faculty, System Administration, and the
Board of Trustees. The Executive Committee also recommends that the University
Faculty Senate, in consultation with the Faculty Council of Community Colleges,
establish a committee to continue dialogue and develop a proposal on assessing the
foundational skills of General Education by March 31, 2004 so that it can be submitted
to campus governance bodies for their views in order to be presented and voted upon
by the Senate at its 2004 Spring Plenary session.
Resolution 136-01-01

To: SUNY University Faculty Senate
From: UFS Governance Committee
Date: January 31, 2004
Subject: Resolution: Campus
Recognition of Campus
Governance Leaders
RATIONALE
Whereas the practice of faculty governance
is a deeply held value by the State University
of New York system and its individual
campuses; and,
Whereas by long standing tradition, the
Campus Governance Leader ceremonially
represents and formally speaks for a
campus faculty as a whole; and
Whereas a survey of the SUNY Campus
Governance Leaders indicates that these
two roles are acknowledged and supported
at significantly varying levels by local
campuses;
RESOLUTION
Therefore be it resolved that the University
Faculty Senate recommends to the
Chancellor and Provost that each SUNY
campus
• Designate its Campus Governance
Leader, or her/his designee, as an
ex-officio member of appropriate
administrative committees that deal
with campus-wide academic policies,
planning and operations,
• Designate its Campus Governance
Leader, or her/his designee, as its faculty
representative in appropriate campuswide
academic ceremonies.
135-04-01

To: SUNY University Faculty Senate
From: UFS Governance Committee
Date: January 31, 2004
Subject: Resolution: Campus support
of local faculty governance
bodies
RATIONALE
Whereas the practice of faculty governance
is a deeply held value by the State University
of New York system and its individual
campuses; and,
Whereas local faculty governance is most
effectively carried out by an adequately
supported local faculty governance body;
and
Whereas a survey of the SUNY Campus
Governance Leaders indicates that significantly
varying levels and kinds of support
are made available to local faculty governance
bodies by local campuses;
RESOLUTION
Therefore be it resolved that the University
Faculty Senate recommends to the Chancellor
and Provost that meaningful support
be made available by each SUNY campus
for its faculty governance body to consist of:
• Appropriate release time for the Campus
Governance Leader with a commitment
to cover that course (or a reasonable
stipend in lieu of release time),
• Provision of secure space for the retention
and preservation of the local faculty
governance body’s archives, both paper
and electronic,
• Reasonable support for the secretarial,
office, and professional. functions of the
local governance body, e.g., phone,
computer, web space.
135-05-01


2003-2004 Standing Committee Activities
Awards Committee
• Its Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Faculty Service similar to the Chancellor’s Award for
Excellence in Teaching was activated September 2003.
• The criteria for Distinguished Service Professor now includes the following consideration;
“may include exceptional leadership in local and system-wide faculty governance,” (for
2004-2005 award year).
• It has voted to present a medallion to distinguished faculty awardees.
• It has prepared a list of the recommended uses of distinguished faculty to enrich SUNY’s
academic enterprise. Presented at the Oneonta Plenary meeting.
• It has prepared a procedure for awarding a University Faculty Senate Outstanding Service
Award. Presented at the Oneonta Plenary.
• It continues to award annual grants under its Conversations in the Disciplines
Governance Committee
• Campus resources for support of the local faculty governance process
• Process and procedures for local governance and faculty participation in evaluation of
campus administration
• Update of university faculty senate governance handbook
Graduate and Research Committee
• Faculty Senate and SUNY Research Foundation sponsored conference on “Funding Your
Scholarly Work: A Workshop on Getting Grants.” April 2-3, 2004, Albany NanoTech at
University at Albany.
Operations Committee
• “The Big Dig – Faculty salaries and positions vs. administrative salaries and positions”
• “Labor Market Analysis and SUNY Grads – Are we Meeting the Needs of the State”
• The faculty budget handbook
• Gender study of faculty grades
• White paper – Energy Needs of SUNY
Public Information Committee
• Getting the University Faculty Senate website developed by Senator Melissa Bishop on-line
and running. This involves transferring archived material from two previous incarnations of
the site to the new site, and ensuring that all existing URL references to the website point to
the new site.
• Establish processes for posting materials to the website. This action item includes posting
oversight by the Senate President (Joe Hildreth), training for the Senate Secretary (Carol
Donato), and operational processes developed by the site webmaster (Melissa Bishop).
• Assist Carol in reducing paperwork sent to senators by posting forms as appropriate.
In addition, the committee has begun work to develop "Campus Snapshots" to be posted to
the website. SUNY Colleges at Oneonta and Cortland will serve as prototypical examples.
Student Life Committee
• Greek Life in the SUNY System
• Cooperation with undergraduate committee on student retention
• Examination of National Survey of Student Engagement for use as an assessment instrument
Undergraduate Committee
• The issue of plagiarism; the committees' efforts will result in a panel discussion of
“Plagiarism and Ethics” at the Spring 2004 Plenary Session.
• Acquiring necessary demographic data on projected SUNY undergraduates over the next
decade or so, and analyzing whether these data suggest any necessary changes in academic
programs and student services.
• Analysis of the SUNY Learning Network, including the approval process for courses and
methods of assessing its success.
Also working on 1) examining issues of retention and attrition; (2) exploring the possibility of
creating a “guidebook” and “template” regarding transfer issues; and (3) studying the nature
of internships/service learning/experiential learning.

UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE ? 2003-2004

Executive Committee
Joseph Hildreth-President (Potsdam)
James McElwaine-Vice President/
Secretary (Purchase)
Richard Collier-Immediate Past
Vice President/Secretary (Albany)
Edward Alfonsin-Parliamentarian
(Potsdam)
George Tortora (Stony Brook)
Timothy Phillips (Cortland)
Anne Donnelly (Cobleskill)
Peter Knuepfer (Binghamton)
Kathleen Jacquette (Farmingdale)
Donald Steven (System Admin.)
Kenneth O’Brien-Campus Governance
Leader Convenor (Brockport)
University Faculty Senators
SUNY System Andrea Benshoff
Administration Donald Steven
UNIVERSITY CENTERS
Albany Richard Collier
Edward Turner
Binghamton Susan Repine
Peter Knuepfer
Buffalo Univ. Judith Adams-Volpe
William Baumer
Marilyn M. Kramer
Peter Nickerson
Stony Brook Melissa Bishop
Norman Goodman
Ram Srivastav
George Tortora
UNIVERSITY COLLEGES
Brockport Melissa Brown
Dena Levy
Buffalo College David Carson
Cherry Searle
Cortland Timothy Phillips
Empire State Michael Andolina
Fredonia Robert Rogers
Geneseo William Gohlman
New Paltz Gerald Kitzmann
Old Westbury Maureen Dolan
Oneonta Achim Koeddermann
Oswego Luther Peterson
Plattsburgh Raymond Guydosh
Potsdam John Cross
Purchase James McElwaine
HEALTH SCIENCE CENTERS
Brooklyn Henry Flax
Bill Soloman
Syracuse James Vossler

COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE
AND TECHNOLOGY
Alfred Bob Brumm
Canton Karen Spellacy
Cobleskill Anne Donnelly
Delhi John Taylor
Morrisville J. Thomas Hogle
SPECIALIZED COLLEGES
Environmental Science
and Forestry Scott Shannon
Farmingdale Kathleen Jacquette
Maritime Barbara Warkentine
Optometry Paul Brodsky
Utica/Rome Douglas Eich
STATUTORY COLLEGES
Alfred Ceramics Peer Bode
Cornell (Agriculture &
Life Sciences) David R. Lee
Cornell (Human
Ecology) Rachel Dunifon
Cornell (NYS Industrial &
Labor Relations) William Sonnenstuhl
Standing Committees
AWARDS COMMITTEE
Justin Giordano-Co-Chair (Empire)
Marvin LaHood-Co-Chair (Buffalo Col)
Carol Lee Anderson (Albany)
Aimee Bernstein-Co-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
Ginette Chambers-Co-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
Raymond Krisciunas (Canton)
Kormi Swaroop Kumar (Potsdam)
Gary Marotta (Buffalo College)
Sandra Michael (Binghamton)
Herbert Shapiro (ESF)
Adam Thorpe (Student)
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
Raymond Guydosh-Co-Chair
(Plattsburgh)
Ron Sarner-Co-Chair (SUNYIT)
James C. Dawson (Plattsburgh)
Andrew Edwards-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
Aaron Goodfrey (Stony Brook)
Greg Lawson (Student)
Marilyn McMann Kramer (Buffalo Univ.)
Ken O’Brien (Brockport)
Edward O’Shea (Oswego)
Thomas Smalling (Stony Brook)
Harry Wyatt (Optometry)

GRADUATE COMMITTEE
Gerald Kitzmann-Co-Chair (New Paltz)
James Varner-Co-Chair (Alfred Ceramics)
Mark Driscoll (ESF)
Frank Hauser (Albany)
Anne Huot-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
Henry Steck (Cortland)
Osmar Yasar (Brockport)
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Paul Brodsky-Co-Chair (Optometry)
Runi Mukherji-Co-Chair (Old Westbury)
Diane Adamczyk (Optometry)
David DeMarco-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
Maureen Dolan (Old Westbury)
Daniel Kinney (Stony Brook)
Ted Turner (Albany)
Karen Volkman (Plattsburgh)
PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMITTEE
Paul Johnson-Co-Chair (Alfred Ceramics)
Richard Wheeler-Co-Chair (Cortland)
Melissa Bishop (Stony Brook)
Lorie Clemo (Oswego)
David Henahan-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
Achim Koeddermann (Oneonta)
Marc Leuthold (Potsdam)
Mohanlal Teloki (Student)
STUDENT LIFE COMMITTEE
Peter Nickerson-Co-Chair (Buffalo Univ.)
Harry Watters-Co-Chair (Fredonia)
Justin Alger (Buffalo University)
Melissa Brown (Brockport)
Edward Engelbride-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
Stephanie Gross (Student)
Mercy Mathew (Buffalo University)
Michael Small (Buffalo University)
Jerald Wrubel (Geneseo)
UNDERGRADUATE COMMITTEE
Norman Goodman-Co-Chair
(Stony Brook)
Melinda Karnes-Co-Chair (Fredonia)
Susan Bastable (Syracuse HSC)
John DeNisco (Buffalo College)
Janet Nepkie (Oneonta)
Cherry Searle (Buffalo College)
Malcolm Sherman (Albany)
Jennifer Smith (Student)
Evelyne Tropper (Plattsburgh)
Kathryn VanArnam-Liaison (Sys. Adm.)
FACULTY SENATE
BULLETIN CO-EDITORS
Vincent Aceto (Albany)
Norman Goodman (Stony Brook)
Marvin LaHood (Buffalo College)

Campus Governance Leaders
UNIVERSITY CENTERS
Albany Marjorie Pryse
Binghamton Richard Eckert
Ross Geoghegan
Buffalo Univ. Peter Nickerson
Larry LabinskiI
Stony Brook Brent Lindquist
UNIVERSITY COLLEGES
Brockport Kenneth O’Brien
(Convener)
Buffalo College Howard Reid
Cortland Jeffrey Walkuski
Empire State Leslie Ellis
Fredonia Joe Chilberg
Geneseo Charlie Freeman
New Paltz Barbara Hardgrave
Old Westbury Kate Velsor
Oneonta Joshua Rosenthal
Oswego Susan Camp
Plattburgh Ellen Fitzpatrick
Paul Johnston
Raymond Guydosh
Potsdam Jessica Suchy-Pilalis
Purchase Graham Ashton
HEALTH SCIENCE CENTERS
Brooklyn None
Syracuse Paula Trief
Steven Youngentob
COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE
AND TECHNOLOGY
Alfred Jeffrey Johnston
Canton Ken Erickson
Cobleskill Angelika Hoeher
Delhi Lynn Domina
Morrisville Diane Tice
SPECIALIZED COLLEGES
Environmental Science
and Forestry Scott Turner
Farmingdale Kathleen Jacquette
Maritime Shmuel Yahalom
Optometry Patricia Modica
Utica/Rome Lori Kane
STATUTORY COLLEGES
Alfred Ceramics Scott Misture


SUMMARY, SPRING PLENARY
(Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, April 22-24, 2004)

Neil D. Levin Institute of International Relations and Commerce
Garrick Utley, former broadcast journalist for NBC, ABC, and CNN and currently
President of this new SUNY Levin Institute in Manhattan, reported on the Institute’s
proposed M.A. in International Relations with concentrations in International Relations,
Commerce, Finance, Law, Transportation Management, Public Administration, and
Global Security Studies, as well as executive and professional certificate programs in
a variety of international fields and special training in foreign languages and culture.
Until the Levin Institute has received approval of its programs from SED, it will
utilize existing relevant programs from a variety of SUNY campuses. It is presently
funded by a special appropriation from the NYS Legislature and corporate donations.
It will initially have a small core faculty and draw upon adjuncts from SUNY campuses
and experts in the field.
Chancellor Robert King
As he usually does, Chancellor King addressed the Senate and reviewed the various
activities of System Administration. He complimented the Senate on its serious and
collegial contribution to finding a mutually acceptable process of assessing the building
blocks of general education. He indicated strong support for the proposal before the
Senate that was to be discussed and voted on later that day; see box at left for information
about the assessment discussion and vote.
Sector Meetings
Traditionally, the Senate holds short meetings by the various sectors to share useful
and relevant information and discuss matters of common concern. These discussions
ranged over many issues but special attention was given to the issue of assessing the
building blocks of general education. In addition, sector representatives to the Senate’s
Executive Committee were nominated at this time.
Panel Presentation on Ethics and Plagiarism
The Undergraduate Academic Programs and Policies Committee sponsored a panel
discussion on plagiarism by undergraduate students. The panelists were Professor
Donald McCabe (Rutgers University), William Morris (Potsdam), Professor Thomas
Mackey (Albany), and Stephanie Gross, President of the SUNY Student Assembly
and a member of the SUNY Board of Trustees. Several studies of the various forms
of plagiarism, attitudes toward it, conditions that appear to foster it, and suggestions
for reducing it were presented and discussed.
Resolutions
A resolution by the SUNY Student Assembly on a “tuition plan” was discussed and,
given its complexity, it was decided to review it again at the Fall Plenary. Several other
resolutions were approved: (1) to support NYS Assembly bill A-07141 to have the
President of the Senate be a non-voting member of the Board of Trustees as long as the
Student Trustee retains voting status; (2) to establish a $500 Ram and Seema Chugh
University Faculty Senate Award for Outstanding Service; (3) to have the Chancellor
re-engage in the discussions of the proper administrative structural arrangement
between Alfred University and the New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred
University; and (4) to support NYS Assembly bill A-8941 or its equivalent successor
bill that increases penalties for hazing. A resolution to require that membership on the
General Education Assessment Review (GEAR) group and the Advisory Council on
General Education (ACGE) be rotated on a 3-year basis was referred to the Executive
Committee to clarify the entire process of membership selection for these groups; the
Executive Committee is to report to the Fall Plenary on this topic.

Assessment Resolution
Passes
On Friday, April 23, 2004, the
University Faculty Senate overwhelmingly
voted to accept the
new proposal on Strengthened
Campus-based Assessment.
There were only 6 dissenting votes.
The debate on the issue lasted two
hours. The tone of the discussion
was civil and respectful of the
opinions of others. The Senate
chose to take the high road in the
expression of differences of opinion.
It was an excellent debate.
Dr. Patty Francis, Professor of
Psychology at SUNY Cortland
(whose research interest is assessment)
provided the group with an
overview of the components of the
new plan. Many questions were
asked and answered.
The Senate was persuaded that
this plan was a good compromise
for both the Senate and the SUNY
System. As Chancellor King said
“I know you are not getting everything
that you want and I am not
getting all that I want, but this is an
example of working together for
the good of the System.”
In my view as President of the
Senate, I see this as a victory for
shared governance. I know that the
influence of faculty has significantly
helped to shape this new approach
to assessment. We can expect to
be full partners in other System
issues and policies in the future.
I am deeply grateful to everyone
who helped us to find the common
ground on this difficult issue.