University Faculty Senate			
Proceedings of the Fall Plenary 
SUNY-Maritime
October 21-23, 2004




Pres. Hildreth: [Greetings]

Barbara Warkentine: Greetings and welcome to SUNY Maritime College, I am pleased 
to welcome you 
to our campus for the 138th plenary fall session of the university faculty 
senate. 

When I was first elected to the senate one year ago, I knew that I was in for a 
time of excitement 
and dealing with important issues of faculty governance, and other issues that 
are a concern to us 
as faculty members, and I was not disappointed last year when I was dealing with 
all the assessment, 
but I really didn't appreciate all the excitement that was going to befall upon 
me and today when 
I was asked by the faculty senate president to bring to proposal to host the 
138th plenary session 
here at Maritime college I must say it has been a challenge and I am still 
recovering. So I would like
to just say thank you for the privilege and the honor of letting me host or at 
least be involved in
the process of bringing us to the campus. I would like to acknowledge the 
support of the college community, 
Carol Donato who has been a blessing to me, the administration here at maritime 
college and to the 
support that we received from Purchase College in terms of our audio equipment, 
and also to our IT 
people. So there's a lot of people that have been involved and I really 
appreciate their help.  

We look forward to having a very productive 2-day stay. I would like to 
encourage you to visit some
of our unique sights, you are on a rather unique maritime campus, it has a 
special theme and it has
a special mission. And while you are here I would like to just point out some of 
the things that you
should visit, having some time off from your busy schedule we do have a maritime 
museum which does 
feature nautical history which is really worth seeing, it's in the fort. The 
other place you should 
visit is our maritime library. The library is also housed in the fort. That is 
also the place that 
you will go to access your email.  

Also I encourage you to just walk to campus, which is approximately one mile 
from the gate circling 
the campus and back to the gate. There are several great views; behind me is the 
east river, around 
the circle a bit is the long island sound, and a little lighthouse called 
stepping stone rock, and a 
beautiful view of Manhattan.  There are a couple of things I do want to say and 
those are about the 
logistics, we tried to make things work and as always some things just don't 
work out as we planned. 
I know that when you came down there were some problems with the transportation, 
that some of the people 
did have to stand on the bus. I apologize for that, we did not anticipate the 
numbers correctly, but 
tried best we could. I know that tomorrow when you do come down, if you have 
cars, you can commute to 
the campus. Tomorrow is a Saturday so parking should be no problem. (Further 
campus info) In keeping 
with the nautical flavor, I would like to wish my fellow senators fair winds and 
following seas as we 
conduct our visit set forth by the agenda before us. I'm sure we will have a 
very productive meeting, 
and at this point I have the privilege to introduce to you our college 
president, Vice Admiral John Ryan. 

[Applause]

John Ryan:  Thanks Barbara, I would just like to say welcome to all of you. I'm 
confused nowadays, for 
the last 8 months I’ve been up here with Bill and Dick at Albany 4 or 5 days a 
week and down here 2 or 3 days 
a week as the President of Maritime college. I think I have to wake up and say 
''do I put on this uniform, 
or do I put on what you guys wear'. 

We're privileged to have you here. You can see that this is a very small, 
specialized school with a little
over 1000 students. We have grown dramatically the last 2 or 3 years. Our young 
men and women, I’d say 
about 85 % of them wear uniforms. The other 15% look like students at Albany or 
any of your universities. 
We were one of the first schools to join SUNY in 1949 and we've benefited 
obviously as a small school form 
the things that SUNY can do for all 64-65 of it's campuses. This is my second 
profession, obviously I spent
the first 33-34 years of my life not sailing with Barbara, but flying airplanes 
and I can tell you that I 
think the profession that you're in I think is the most noble of all 
professions. I feel privileged to now 
have been a part of it for 7 years. The first 4 at the naval academy, 2 here and 
now about 8 months up at Albany. 

And I’ve learned so much about the people who bring our colleges and university 
to life each day, and that’s 
you and all the students obviously. And you have my respect and admiration. I 
will tell you that my big 
concern in the time I’ve been in New York, is pretty well characterized by the 
most recent measuring up 
that's come out, I hope you've seen this, if you haven’t you know, it talks 
about how all 50 states measure 
up in areas of participation, preparation, affordability, completion, benefits 
and they're going to add one 
more thing here as we get on with assessment. 

The one area where we in NY are not doing well is affordability. I see that in 
Albany, and I see it here at 
the Maritime college. We get an F as a state when we're ranked with all 50 
states, and of course some get 
As, B's, C's. It really is something that I think you and I have to speak out 
about whether it's with politicians, 
with our citizens, whoever we can talk to and address it. It seems to be going 
in the wrong direction in fact 
in the last 10 years here in New York we've had a dismal record. And I’ve seen 
students drop out here because 
of affordability problems I see them extending their education over 6 years or 7 
years again, it's not because 
they are not motivated, it's because of affordability issues. 

I hope that you have some time to talk about that I know it's a topic with all 
the presidents. But we really need 
to go on with a better game plan and move it above politics. The problem of 
course is we had this thing called 
Medicaid and we have the wrong formula, you know, that states get money from the 
federal government when they 
spend money on Medicaid, and I'm not against that, but I really feel like we 
need to do this not just on a state 
level, but on a national level, if we're going to have an America this century 
that’s going to be the land of 
opportunities, so I hope you do have time to talk about that. This is really the 
most important issue for me, from 
my perspective that any of us in education can talk about when you think about 
what you all have done for the last 
couple of generations of Americans, we need to make those same kind of 
opportunities available. 

Richard Florida has written a book "The Rise of the Creative Class", I urge you 
to read that if you haunt read it. 
It’s a remarkable book well sourced. He says that about 30% of our workforce now 
consists of the creative class 
and of course you would be in that. That’s really whets fueling this information 
economy. And it so important 
that regions and cities in his book are identified and given grades just like 
they are from measuring up based 
on a couple of different things like the kind of different talents that are 
available in the region or city. 
The type of fostering that the government does, I mean do they welcome 
diversity. Do they welcome people with 
different lifestyles? And most importantly he says that the real fuel, that the 
rise of the creative class and 
the new information economy is our research universities. So of course we have a 
number of research universities 
represented here.  He said, these research universities are our roads and 
highways and canals and transportation 
systems of this new economy, so it speaks well of what we do here and I would 
encourage you to look at that book 
if you haven't. But it tells you that the work that you're doing is incredibly 
important, and it needs to be done 
by he best people we can find, and I look around now and I see that so I hope 
you enjoy your conference, and I 
hope you enjoy your time here at maritime college. Thank you. 

[Applause]

Bill Gehring, provost at Maritime: It's good to have you all here today and to 
reacquaint myself with Joe, 
having spent so many lunches across the street from SNY system with him, and my 
colleagues from system and Patty, 
and I'm just delighted that we're able to provide this venue for you and your 
important work. I apologize that 
the bus was a little tight, but we calculated the average weight, which was 
given to us by Joe [laughing] of 
the faculty senator, and apparently some of the data needs to be updated. 

We're in a real transition point in higher education, I guess people have been 
saying that, maybe forever 
but as the Admiral pointed out, we've got issues of cost and affordability and 
accessibility of higher education 
and we have legislatures that want us to be accountable for what we do. I think 
when it gets to the bottom line, 
probably you look at system administration, you look at campus administration 
you look at the faculties, I think 
underneath it all everybody's pretty much in agreement about whets important in 
higher education. I think the 
tensions come up when we talk about how to get there, and those are not 
unhealthy tensions, although sometimes 
when I was in system administration I thought they might be affecting my health 
but I think three’s a natural 
balance and a natural dialectic that emerges from that. I think the product that 
we end up with is better than 
either something that comes solely from the campus or solely from system 
administration. 

I’ve had the good fortune of working at SUNY Delhi, Adirondack community 
college, and then system administration 
here and I know sometimes people get a little bit hot under the collar about 
issues but when people who really 
care about higher education get together whether they are on the administrative 
side, campus, system or faculty 
I think they find ways to strengthen what we are doing and improve it.

And I know what you are going to be doing today is going to follow that path and 
I welcome you to maritime and 
for purely selfish reasons, we love to have people come to our campus because 
every time I tell someone I work 
in the Bronx, I see their face drop, and we were trying to slowly but surely 
dispel the image of the Bronx. 
I know for years I drove over the Throgs Neck bridge and had no idea what was 
going on down here, and this is 
an opportunity for you to see our campus and learn a little bit about what we do 
and spread the word about us 
because we think we are one of the best kept secrets in SUNY.  Enjoy your 
meeting today and tomorrow, and I 
look forward to chatting with you throughout the day. 

[Applause]

Introduction of new senators:  
William Lanford, University of Albany
William Coles, University of Buffalo
Ken O'Brien, Brockport
Jennifer Lloyd, Brockport
John DeNisco, Buffalo
Terry Browne, Geneseo
Jacqueline Goodman, Potsdam
John Forrest, Purchase
William Solomon, Downstate
Elizabeth Kornecki, Downstate
Sarah Grethlein, Upstate
Carl Wiezalis, Upstate
Ann Huot, System Administration

President: Two primary objectives for the meeting. First we want to provide you 
with an understanding of 
the major issues who are being acted upon by system administration today. If 
knowledge is power, then 
you are going to be a very powerful person. Second we want to provide you the 
opportunity to present your
concerns to key leaders in system administration, namely the chancellor Provost 
Salins, and on Saturday, 
Father John Cremins. Take good notes, and I assure you, you will be the most 
informed person on your 
campus about issues and policies in SUNY today. What we want to have happen is 
to work on the development, 
and I hope we have it but I think we can refine it, of the seamless 
communication that results in action 
from the senate through local government, to our campuses. And then to take 
concerns that occur on the 
campus and with seamless communication, see those come right back to the senate.  
That kind of loop is 
what I'm really trying to work on right now. 

During my report today, and also during the course of the meeting, there are 
going to be some times where 
we are going to try to stop and say 'ok now, maybe some of the thing we say are 
important, but some of 
them are REALLY important'. We are going to try to indicate those to let you 
know and try to put some 
emphasis on these when you go back home. I also wanted to bring to your 
attention that I try to have a 
summary of my meeting available to you so that you could see what I’ve been 
doing and if you have a question 
later on, that you can ask that and those are available on the handout table 
along with copies of our new 
senate directory, so don't go home without a directory, I find it to be a very 
useful resource. 

Well the first thing I wanted to do, I see, is Carol around? Yes she is, exactly 
where I needed her to be too. 
The first thing I wanted to do is to show you our new website Carol has it up. 
This is the home page. You’ll 
see that the home page now features a photograph of the members of the senate. 
This was taken last April at 
Upstate and what we're going to do is have a photograph taken today and that 
will be the new one that will 
be inserted there, so when it comes time for the photo please be there and lets 
keep our fingers crossed 
that its as nice as the one we had from upstate. (Flips through web pages and 
describes each in brief)  

                                                 www.suny.edu/facultysenate

(Continues) Let me give you a couple of bits of information about the budget 
that we are working on this year, 
and that is that the 50 million dollars that was approved by the legislature 
with the intent that it be given 
to donor campuses has been partially held back. 

Now, those of you that need a little refresher, remember that last year there 
was a $200million budget 
reduction to SUNY and the legislature then approved SUNY raising tuition by an 
amount that would basically 
generate that amount so in the legislatures mind, well, Sunni's ok. You got a 
budget that’s not a growth 
budget but you're not being reduced like a lot of other state agencies. Well the 
problem was that we have 
some of our campuses that have more dependence on tuition than other campuses. 
So if you're a university, 
some of our university senators for instance are not as dependent on tuition as 
our comprehensive colleges, 
so when this reduction and increase in tuition was run through the budget 
allocation process, what happened 
was a lot of our comprehensive colleges ended up having increases and some of 
our universities ended up 
having decreases. In order to hold everyone harmless and give everyone an even 
playing field, a decision 
was made to take money away from the campuses that would have seen increases, 
and give it to a campus that 
was going to experience a decrease. That of course made everyone that would have 
gained money quite upset 
so this resulted in a request and an approval of an additional 50 million $ 
which was given to the campuses 
that gave money last year. 

Only the governor’s office did not release all of the 50 million, it only 
released one third. For those 
campuses that were donor campuses, you will get a third of what you gave back 
last year. The idea is hat 
the other two thirds will be distributed to the other donor campuses over the 
next few years, but there is 
a lot of concern given New York's budget whether or not that will ever happen.  
However I can tell you that 
the core budget for campuses is up 2.5% since last year and that the all funds 
budget is expected to exceed 
8 billion, and of that appropriation1 billion will go for direct state support, 
not fringe benefits. 

Tuition in state remains the same for undergraduates, however there are some 
increases for professional 
schools. They range from a high $2000 for resident medical school to a low of 
$470 at our law schools. The 
state has enacted the 1.8 billion dollar capital plan proposed by the 
government. Let me talk to you briefly 
about the new budget allocation process. I'm a member of the committee, and 
basically what this is trying to 
do is come up with a formula that will distribute the 1 billion of the 
appropriation. 8 billion dollars that 
SUNY receives for its all fund budget and Chancellor King charged the group this 
summer to develop a plan 
that’s fair simple, transparent, and predictable. 

And so since I'm representing all sectors on this I felt that the best thing for 
me to do was to be an 
advocate for fairness and that’s what I’ve tried to do in terms of all the 
comments I’ve made within the 
group. Currently the group is looking at a process which would utilize funded 
functional categories and these 
categories are undergraduate, graduate one, graduate two, professional, 
research, and earmarks, or special 
(for example funding for the ship which is unique to maritime).  In our 
discussions last night it was apparent 
there was some unevenness in terms of local faculty governance and the 
preparation of the campus response to 
set a 49 or 52 questions on Mission Review that was sent out earlier. There are 
all sorts of things that make 
this process incredibly important. Let me give you a few that we talked about 
last night. The process talks 
about the campuses role in distinctiveness in the system. 

This information is going to be used for the foreseeable future when you apply 
for a new program. It is going
to be looked at in terms of whether this program makes sense given your stated 
campus role within the SUNY 
system. So it's a very important portion of that document. Also there is a 
section on faculty, which faculty 
are obviously going to have an interest in. Other issues such as future 
programmatic plans, which I know you, 
would have an interest in. There's going to be a campus visits that are going to 
be occurring later this year 
that we felt it would be very important that there would be a significant 
involvement in faculty in terms of 
that initial campus response to those questions And we found in terms of talking 
with people that the level of 
faculty involvement at the campus level was all over the map. It was perfectly 
satisfactory in some places, 
and perfectly unsatisfactory at other places. 

And so one of the things we wanted to do is take some of our opportunity to 
speak with provost Salins to see 
what we can do, or maybe we can get some help to be able to get this significant 
level of faculty involvement, 
this time around. I don't want to wait for Mission Review 3; I want to do it 
now. Since we had this information 
presented to us over a year ago, in great detail, I certainly want to make sure 
that we position ourselves to 
have that kind of a role. So I'm looking forward to that section of provost 
Salins report. Another use of 
Mission Review, remember Mission Review is one of these key documents that finds 
itself in the strategic plan, 
it also finds itself, a lot of it's features are used in an evaluation of your 
campus president, which makes it 
another very important document, and it's going to result in a memorandum of 
understanding. 

Typically these memoranda of understanding have following points. They will have 
a section on admission 
selectivity, campus role in distinctiveness, which I mentioned earlier, faculty 
quality, diversity and development, 
and the future direction of your campus program. So it's a very important issue, 
and it's something you very much 
need to be involved in. And what we're trying to do is to try to work on getting 
this seamless transfer, this 
information that we've been talking about for over a year in the senate, to the 
campuses for action. Now what's 
the action? You need to be involved in this in a significant way.  Assessment is 
another topic we will be talking 
about today. 

Again we have with us today Dr. Patty Francis who has recently been hired in the 
provost office, and she's going 
to be leading the implementation of enhanced campus based assessment and will be 
making a presentation on the 
faculty development report which is really I think good news type of report. 
She's also going to be talking about 
membership and gear and I think that will be a presentation people will be 
interested in as well. 

On teacher education, there was a report on the implementation on the new vision 
in teacher education distributed 
recently, and you'll recall that the new vision required an increase in content 
for secondary teachers as well as 
increased field experience.  Part of this initiative is a teacher education 
template that's been developed and this 
has been done in order to ease transfer issues between our community colleges 
and our senior colleges. And one 
feature that’s currently been accepted is that there's a 6-course teacher 
education program approved for our 
community colleges. This 6-course program consists of 4 general education 
courses and 2 Teacher Ed courses. 
2 community colleges have been approved for this already and I believe that 
there are 8 or 9 community colleges 
applying to have the same program implemented. 

The word I’ve heard is that there are many of our senior colleges are pleased 
with this because it is going to 
increase their current transfer articulation. The faculty development task 
force, Patty will talk about. I've been 
very pleased with the art exhibitions we've been offering. We have been 
organizing for the last few years 3 statewide 
student art exhibits at state university plaza. In terms of art I’d like to 
bring one more thing to your attention. 
There is a theatre fellowship and Ross award that is given each year to an 
outstanding graduate of SUNY that tends 
to go on to a professional career in the arts, and next year I'm going to be 
helping to administer that. 

The Thayer fellowship has a $7000 award, the Ross award is $1000, so it is a 
reasonable amount of money who wants 
to make a transition from college to their career. It's not intended to help 
someone go from an undergrad to a 
graduate school, but once they are ready to go into a career, that’s what it is 
designed for. There are posters 
being sent out his week, and I would encourage you to talk to someone in your 
art department and to have them 
communicate this with their students, and have them apply.  

The Graduate Program Enhancement Initiative. This initiative is designed to 
evaluate our strengths and establish 
national benchmarks and determine appropriate metrics for first-degree 
professional programs such as medical 
education, law and PHD graduate programs. Recently John Lombardi who is the 
Chancellor of the University of 
Massachusetts, at Amherst, conducted a workshop on national benchmarks and 
metrics. The honors advisory council. 
This is a group charged with the evaluation of honors level education on our 
state operated campuses the council 
has been asked to make recommendations on appropriate benchmarks and criteria 
that the trustees might use in 
granting an honors designation to a program, a department, or a college. In 
addition this group will make 
recommendations on a process for determining which academic unit should receive 
this designation. SUNY as you 
may remember has been involved in a response to the current nursing shortage, 
and recently Bill Murabito, who 
is an associate Vice Chancellor of university life has been asked to review the 
work that's already begun, and 
to make plans for the next steps. 

I wanted to talk about one more development, and that’s in academic standards. 
Recently trustee DeRussy resigned 
over a dispute over a proposed agenda for the committee for the upcoming 
academic year. Chairman Thomas Egan 
accepted her resignation, and he appointed SUNY trustee father John Cremins as 
the new chair. Father Cremins will 
be here tomorrow in order to meet you and to listen to your concerns, and I 
consider this to be very good news 
for all of us in the university. 

And with that, I’d like to conclude by telling you that I'm most pleased to have 
this opportunity to represent 
you for the last 3 years and during my terms as president I’ve worked very hard 
to increase communication between 
the senate and our local campuses as well as between the senate and system 
administration. And I think that we've 
made good progress in both areas especially in terms of increasing our influence 
in the decision making process 
of SUNY, and I know that it could have never happened without your hard work and 
support and so I wanted to 
thank you for the opportunity to represent you and for supporting me in terms of 
the efforts we've been engaged 
in over the last 3 years. And with that, I’d be pleased to answer and questions 
you might have. 

Q: With regards to the website, are we going to be doing a discussion group, or 
something where we can ask 
questions to the individual committees?

A: Yes that’s been talked about since its inception, and we continue to talk 
about that and we hope to be 
able to have that. There are some technical issues involved with that, but I 
hope that we will be able to 
overcome those. 

Dick: What about publication I'm thinking particularly of the guide to 
evaluation of programs, I would think 
that should be accessible from the website.

A: I agree I don't see any reason why not.

Thank you, and we will move on, I’d like to introduce our Vice President, Jim 
McElwaine, who is going to do 
roll call and executive committee report.

Jim McElwaine: The executive committee met last night as well as at the fall 
planning meeting in Saratoga in 
September. Reports were received from all committees. On Saturday, that is 
tomorrow, you will receive 3 motions 
from the governance committee as well as some finalized proceedings from all the 
other committees. I will give 
you a very brief description of what each committee has submitted as its agenda 
for this year.  The awards 
committee will be finalizing distinguished faculty awards; the designs of those 
awards are being presented. 
There is a senator Merit and friend of the senator award being designed. The 
governance committee is submitting 
a resolution you will have it tomorrow. On the Nanotech Center, also a 
resolution on the formalizing faculty 
council of community college and university faculty senate relations. It is also 
going to submit a resolution 
on academic reorganization practices, like making sure that each campus has a 
description on it's procedures 
there, how the faculty and the administration collaborate in that very tricky 
scenario. There will be from 
the graduate committee a mentoring program being proposed for the graduate 
faculty, and perhaps a revision of 
the faculty orientation guide. Also a study of the graduate faculty and student 
in certain areas, and they have 
decided to defer a proposed conference in graduate nursing.  The operations 
committee will be serving adjunct 
roles and academic support, it will continue its comparative analysis of 
increased cost in administration and 
faculty it is completing a faculty profile analysis. The public information 
committee is in the process of 
reorganizing both the website and some of it's own priorities; committee is also 
considering the implementation 
of discussion boards and messaging boards, and their formats for downloading. 
The student life committee is 
collaborating with the undergraduate committee, the student life committee will 
continue it's work on the quality 
of student life and it's impact on SUNY retention. It is going to issue report 
templates on that. It is also studying 
Greek life, SUNY athletic practices. The undergraduate committee is exploring 
internship practices, both credited 
and non-credited, and SUNY wide retention data will be studied in collaboration 
with the student life committee. 
That committee is proposing and intellectual property symposium for March of 
2006. And that concludes my report. 

President: Now it's my privilege to be able to introduce the university provost, 
Dr. Peter Salins. Dr. Salins 
is the architect and the driving force that is helping to move SUNY to the front 
ranks of higher education. He's 
a delight to talk with; he has a tremendous amount of information and can 
deliver it without a single note, 
which impresses me beyond belief. Peter, welcome

Provost Salins: [Greetings] I would first like to announce the change in the 
leadership of academic standards 
committee which I know some of you will be viewing with regret. What I want to 
do is to reassure you that the 
committee is functioning very well in its new incarnation that we had our first 
academic standards meeting 
this Tuesday. We actually had a very good meeting. I lad out to the committee 
the going forward agenda of 
my office and asked the committee to focus on those things they wanted us to 
report on in greater depth. 
So I think this represents a turning point which I think is very positive. I 
want to go through some of 
the key issues again. Mission Review 2. What I would like to do there is respond 
to question you may have 
there so we can get this to work. Joe is right; Mission Review 2 is a crucial 
initiative in terms of 
moving the university forward. Mission Review 1 was quite a historic venture; at 
the time that we did 
that I don't think there was any university system in the country that had 
anything like it.
The point that Joe raised is that you have to be deeply involved in that 
process, both as a plenary 
group here but perhaps even more importantly campus by campus. The guidelines 
for Mission Review 1 
and 2 do require faculty involvement at each campus. We will do what we can to 
ensure that will 
involvement is meaningful.  

By December we should have all of the campus reports in, and we're going to be 
critiquing them in fact, 
as they come in we review them, and we analyze them, and we will be beginning 
our campus visits in the 
spring. And perhaps we may go beyond that, but I'm hoping we can get all the 
visits done in the next 
calendar year, in 05'. At the conclusion of which we will have drafted a whole 
new set of MOU's for 
every single campus. When we come around to each campus, we're going to have at 
least the framework 
for the draft MOU in place. It really is critical for you and your colleagues at 
the campuses to be 
involved, especially at that point when we are at the campus with some detail 
expressing the content 
of each campuses MOU, because as Joe indicated, those MOU's are the guiding 
force of each campus going 
forward and they have really been enormously valuable to the campuses and to the 
system. The Mission 
Review process puts frame around many of the other things we are doing. We wish 
for our Mission Review 
to extend past the academic more deeply to the financial. Money does matter, 
even if the best things in 
life are free, money helps and facilities matter a great deal, I think that we 
need to integrate what 
we are doing and the facilities with what we're doing on the financial front. 
Phil wood and the 
construction fund are very supportive of that idea really been terrific so we 
are gong to be working 
with both the finance office and the construction fund, and we will have reps 
from those offices at most 
of the campus meetings. So Mission Review will be deeper and broader, and I 
think it will bring a new 
vitality to each of our campuses. 

CD change 

Provost Salins can’t: The very issues that made this a success added complexity. 
So the complexity 
does have to be translated into fairly precise guidelines, and procedures that 
will enable each campus 
to participate, in the initiative. Patty will go into much more detail. Teacher 
education. We educate 
almost half of all the teachers in New York State, and they are the better 
teacher in New York State. 
We have supplied the strongest teachers to elementary and supplementary programs 
in the state. This 
fact is not enough and we are always trying to get better, and so we adopted a 
rigorous approach.  
I'm working very closely with the leaders of our teach education program and the 
people in my office 
Hubert, and Kate and others who specialize in teacher education and supply 
additional strength and 
vigor to this. 

Elementary and secondary education is one f the most important issues in the 
United States. Today, 
one of the things the candidates have been talking about is elementary and 
secondary education. It's 
important at the national level, the state level, the local level, and certainly 
the preparation of 
teachers is an element to that. We are inclined to do everything we can to make 
sure we turn out the 
best teachers in the country and what I am particularly focused on is we send 
them to the school where 
they are needed, and we send them to the subject areas where they are needed.  
The report is we are not 
very present in the high needs parts of the state, and we are not very present 
in high needs subjects. 
So we need more teachers in math and science, special ED, foreign languages. We 
need more of our teachers 
in the cities and in the poorer towns, and Indian reservations in the state, 
where good teaching is even 
more critical. One final point, you correctly say you have to be involved in the 
life of your campuses, 
but likewise the teachers and the teaching community have to be involved in the 
life of the schools. I 
don't think that the public schools are anywhere near the level of engagement of 
the teachers in the 
actual structure of the schools and curriculum, and what happens at the schools, 
as you are on our 
campuses. You may have complaints of not being involved enough, but I think that 
you are far ahead of 
your counterparts in elementary and secondary schools in that count. 

I'm talking about having the higher education community take the lead in helping 
set elementary and 
secondary education school policy very much they way higher education medical 
centers set that tone 
and sculpt the medical practice.  So, one part of new vision that maybe is less 
recognized is sort of 
the research and policy component, so I’d like to continue work on that and we 
identify those practices 
and structures and policies which would be most effective.  

Moving on Master plan. We did it. With a certain amount of toil and thought we 
got the report done. 
It's a very large complex report, and it's available to anyone here online. Have 
enough paper in your 
printer. It's on the provost office's website, and you can download it. In any 
case, it's an important 
document. We did I think, a very good job in identifying all the things that 
we're doing with all the 
important parties including the faculty and other members of the system 
administration, and the campuses. 
The thing that is most hard for some to understand is planning for a university 
system like SUNY is not 
the same as planning for a campus. 

We have 60 institutions, and 30 of them have local sponsors, 6 of them sitting 
on private university 
campuses, and 5 of them are at least substantially managed by those private 
universities. But even within 
the sphere of the state operated campuses where we have more complete authority, 
the campuses are so 
different that the only way you can plan for a university system, is to erect a 
planning framework and 
that is the point that we make very strongly in the document, it's a point that 
I’ve made talking to the 
trustees, officials at the state education department and other. What we are 
doing in our master plan is 
communicating how we intend to achieve the objectives that we are seeking, but 
we need processes, like the 
Mission Review process we've talked about, and like some of the other things 
that brought us new vision or 
assessment or other initiatives... like the university wide strategic plan which 
we are in the process of 
implementing, like the community college future plan and like the budget 
allocation process. 

What we build in the system is a framework, which will have very specific 
results for each campus. Some 
think that the master plan will set out in great specificity exactly what will 
happen to enrollment or 
other characteristics at some point in the future. The most we can do, as a 
university system is to set 
out a framework and allow that framework to achieve the results. I also think 
faculty development is 
most crucial. Faculty is our best resource, so we have to not only make sure 
that we recruit and retain 
the very best faculty possible, but we have to support them on our campuses, and 
in a consistent way. 

Academic preparedness. 

One of the things that has frustrated me a great deal is sort of the assumption 
that we in educating the 
students that come to us are essentially starting from scratch. It seems that 
some people feel it doesn't 
matter what happens in the lives of the student all those years before they 
enter the SUNY system. Yes 
we screen for GPA we screen for SAT scores and some other characteristics, but 
we are largely indifferent 
to the body of knowledge and skills that they may have or may not have acquired 
in the years before they 
got to us. Certainly in the 12th grade, they are concerned what happened in the 
11th grade, and in the 5th 
grade they are concerned about what happened in the 4th grade, why we shouldn't 
be concerned, we in the 13th 
grade, what happened in the 12th grade or earlier doesn't make sense at all. I 
have argued for years, and 
we're finally making some progress, that we need to become more involved in the 
preparation in the students 
before they come to SUNY. 

Secondly, most of our peers in America are doing that. The website of U 
California, they have very specific 
criteria and view on what student should be doing at the very least in high 
school, before they come to 
college. We need to do that to. First of all, we have to find out what the 
pattern of curricular and other 
experiences are in our incoming students. Some people in my office are working 
on that, and we have a group 
of campuses that agreed to be pilots that are going through the transcript and 
application data that is 
submitted by their incoming students, so we can get that notion of what has 
happened in the lives of the 
students before they came to SUNY. Many people from the state education 
department want us to follow this 
approach. I feel very passionate about this; I feel we need to be involved in at 
the very least secondary 
education for students coming into SUNY.  The learning environments area, it's 
all good news. 

We got agreement from Chancellor King and Vice Chancellor Richter to 
significantly increase the investment 
in the learning environments area, so we are hiring a lot of new people and 
strengthening some key components, 
learning environments is the umbrella under which we have the SUNY learning 
network. We now have web 
enhancement for all courses under course space. I really encourage you and your 
colleagues to take advantage 
of course space which is sort of our version of a commercial product like web CT 
or angel, which will be 
significantly less expensive than commercial products. The other thing is that 
course space is the platform 
for the SUNY learning networks, so you can move from simple web enhancements of 
your courses to hybrid courses 
to full-scale online courses. That whole environment is being enhanced and I 
want you to be aware of it and 
keep up with it.


We are working on a single unified library for the entire SUNY so any student 
anywhere including any 
one of our community colleges including even a small institution like Maritime 
will be able to take 
advantage of the 18 million volume, and growing university wide library and 
periodicals collection. That 
pretty much concluded my report. Questions?

Maureen Dolan: I would like to point out that on the Old Westbury campus, the 
involvement of faculty 
governance has been minimal and recently when we saw the draft document, faculty 
governance is extremely 
concerned on not only about its lack of participation but also what seems to be 
a lack of connection with 
previous planning efforts lack of connection to previous strategic planning 
facilities, resource and budget 
planning. I'm wondering if you can comment or make a suggestion on what might be 
an appropriate and effective 
way for faculty governance to raise these concerns.

A: I know that’s an issue Maureen. In the general guidelines we have asked the 
campuses, in fact we made it 
even more strenuous requirements then we did in Mission Review 1, to involve the 
faculty in the preparation 
of the report and to involve the faculty in the campus visits. But the fact that 
we exhorted my not necessarily 
have achieved the right result. I'm not entirely sure what the best way is to 
proceed and I think that we have 
to end, and my staff has to discuss this. Bt perhaps we need a communication to 
the campuses where we indicate 
that we just want to remind them that it is critically important both in the 
preparation of the guidance 
document and in the preparations for the campus visit and the drafting of the 
MOU that there not only be 
faculty involvement but that they actually have the formal faculty government 
structure of the campus engage 
in the process. I don't want to be glib about this, so I will say that I have to 
sit down with my staff and 
we need to figure out the best way of making sure that this component of the 
process is observed.

Q: Pete Knuepfer, Binghamton: One of the things that Joe mentioned and you 
didn't which is of great interest 
to me and that is the graduate program enhancement initiative. Can you comment 
to me on where that stands?

A: OK, Joe did report the retreat which I heard was a great success, with the 
graduate deans and Chancellor 
Lombardi who brings not only a rigorous perspective, but a fresh perspective 
because he's outside of the 
system, he also has this national center for the study of campus effectiveness 
and campus programs so he 
brings a great deal of credibility to this effort and he's also a very effective 
facilitator and leader. 
The focus of that retreat has been on the doctoral and first professional 
programs. I know there is a 
great deal of concern in this body and elsewhere that we have a similar effort 
and focus on masters 
level programs. 

We have considerable Masters activity around the university and let me just 
remind you may or may not 
know about my background, but most of my academic career was at the masters 
level. The program that I 
ran at Hunter College in NY City was a masters level program. I'm very familiar 
with, and very supportive 
of master’s level education I am very much a preacher of it, or somebody that 
was involved in it. We're 
going to have to do that though in a slightly different format there is a group 
of masters level deans 
that are meeting, and we will very much support that effort to work and try to 
strengthen all gradate 
education, not just the doctoral and first professional. But there are different 
issues I think we 
have to recognize that. 

One reason that the initiative that we have launched right now is so important 
is that these programs 
in the aggregate professional and undergraduate, take a very large share of the 
resources of the 
university and for that very reason we have to make sure that with our enormous 
investments in these 
programs, it may not be enormous enough, everybody in those programs will tell 
you, but it is enormous 
we have to make sure that we invest those resources as effectively as we 
possibly can. Our goal, is 
to achieve the front ranks status, but to achieve that we have to strengthen 
certain things. 

Perhaps one of the areas where we have the greatest distance to go is in this 
arena because in the 
current front ranks in America are Berkley and UCLA and the U of Michigan, Duke, 
Stamford, Cal Tech, 
and nobody here thinks that we are as good as the schools I just mentioned, but 
we are going to get 
that good but we do have to focus our energy and our resources to do it. But we 
also want to have 
the best masters programs in the country as well. 

Q: Dick Collier, Albany: (fist comment inaudible) after all this work on teacher 
ED is complete, 
when are you acting on similar issues with business programs?

A: One reason that I’m so pleased with the teacher education transfer template, 
is because it's 
in place and in line, not yet fully implemented, but the reason I'm so excited 
about that is not 
just because it will facilitate transfer in teacher education, its a template or 
a paradigm that 
we can replicate in other fields. I have been quite frustrated over the years of 
this endless 
churning debate on transfer, and it's not that I don't take it seriously, but, 
all of this stuff 
has been way too abstract as if the baccalaureate campuses were intentionally 
trying to keep 
community colleges from coming in which they weren't. Most of the baccalaureate 
campuses have 
been sincere and eager to get as many community college transfers as possible. 
All the problems 
that exist are program specific. It is not that Binghamton keeps students form 
Broom from enrolling, 
all of the problems deal with particular programs and the teacher education 
transfer template is 
that the first time that we officially recognized that and tried to get 
representatives from the 
2 sets of campuses and iron out what is it that get in the way or that would be 
needed to permit 
students to transfer from one institution to another. I'm saying lets go to the 
major high demand 
programs and do the same thing, business is the next step. We need to have 
people from the business 
programs at the upper division, and the business programs at the community 
colleges sit down, 
because essentially the problems are very simple. We have either redundancy or 
deficiency. Redundancy, 
we have community colleges offering the same things that the upper division 
programs offer and then 
when the upper division students come and say they've already taken that 
marketing, or accounting, 
they say "well you may have taken it, but what you took isn’t the same thing as 
what we offer" and 
then they are angry and frustrated and complain to their former presidents or 
professors or whatever. 
So we have to have people agree this is what gets taught in the lower division 
whether it’s at a 
community college or a baccalaureate campus, that this is what gets taught in 
the upper division. 
At the very least the student should be aware.  Then there is deficiency. You 
have student who want 
to go into an engineering program. Well you can't be an engineer without 
calculus, and relatively few 
students at our colleges take calculus, in fact very few students anywhere in 
America take 
calculus. Until we recognize that for certain upper division programs there are 
certain kinds of 
courses and experiences that you have to have. So what we have right now is 
community college students 
apply to engineering programs they are accepted, and then they are told, "well 
you have to have 9 
credits of advanced math that you didn't already have". And that is quite 
alarming and makes it difficult 
for them to graduate in a timely fashion. So they go back to their original 
campuses and they complain about 
that so both in terms of redundancy and deficiency, these are the things that 
these templates will try to correct. 

(Provost continues) What was wrong with the old [BAP] is that there we no 
connection between the numbers 
that were driven by the formulas in the [BAP]. And the money that was actually 
available. In the early 
years the old BAP, which was introduced in 1998, my office worked very closely 
with that office of finance 
and university wide committee to develop the old BAP which was really a 
milestone in the development of the 
university, giving us a more modern and appropriate way of allocating the money 
that we had. There were some 
key notions in the old BAP, let me just go briefly to 2 key notions in the old 
BAP that survived in the new 
BAP. First of all, the tuition revenue stays on the campus. That is not 
absolutely technically correct 
because all revenue generated by any state entity, including meter maids, is 
public revenue, so tuition is 
public revenue, and has to be appropriated by the legislator. 

Technically the board of trustees of the university can set any tuition it 
likes, but if the legislature 
doesn't appropriate the revenues that are generated, it doesn't do any good, and 
so the fact that we can't 
spend the money makes sure that the tuition we agree to is approved by the 
legislature. But not withstanding 
the fact that they've appropriated, what we've done in effect is we've said that 
every dime of tuition 
revenue collected on a campus will be credited to the campus and we'll make sure 
that the state appropriation 
of that revenue is consistent. So for all intensive purposes from the point of 
view of the campus they 
are keeping tuition. That was q real breakthrough and we're still the only 
university system in the 
entire U.S. that does that. And that includes our sister university system of 
the city of New York surrounding 
us at this particular site. 

The other major innovation of that was that it was performance based rather than 
reimbursement based. 
Performance based is not always understood. I always talk about big Pete and 
little Pete. Little 
Pete is sort of the performance bonuses that might attend a campus doing a 
little bit better 
than it might otherwise do. The big Pete is that the fundamental driver of the 
formula is tied to 
some performance based variable rather than reimbursement. Most budgets in most 
organization in 
the public sector including the SUNY budgets before BAP are reimbursement based. 
We spend 
12 million on heat, we spend 40 million on this etc. and what happens in a 
reimbursement-based 
thing is first of all the budgetary authority or the central administration 
tries to control 
expenditures because they control budgets by [controlling it?]. 

You can't hire people this year or you can't buy any more lawnmowers, or 
whatever the expenditure 
category is, then the question is whether or not there enough money to pay for 
all the things 
that campuses need. Not everybody realizes that we've moved away form that. I 
still hear library 
directors say that we can't buy any books because SUNY doesn't give us any money 
to buy books. We 
don't give any campus money to pay the president, we don't give them money to 
mow the lawn, etc. 
we give them money. And they have to decide what they want to do with that money 
and how they want 
to spend it. So we certainly monitor that and audit that so it has to be done 
appropriately. But 
that shift from a reimbursement based budgetary format to a performance-based 
format was 
revolutionary and that survives. And we had for most of the all BAP 20% of the 
value of the 
external grants that a campus got would result in allocation form the system to 
support the surface, 
it is not overhead, it is simply a metric that indicates the relative intensity 
of research work 
at that campus. 

We have 2 other categories that fall outside of the big P, we have the Upstate 
Downstate recognition, 
the fact that is more expensive to run campuses downstate than upstate and the 
other is the small 
campus recognition that there is a sliding scale that even the smallest campuses 
have a basic 
infrastructure that needs to be supported that goes away at a certain size, but 
with those exceptions, 
almost everything else was distributed for instruction and research. If that 
continues, the real 
problem is that the old BAP had formulas that could drive whatever number based 
on the circumstances 
back in 1998 when the old BAP was developed, until about 2001 it worked pretty 
well because we had 
enough money from the state to operate the formula and if we were a couple % 
point shy, let say 
we had 98% of the funds that they needed, every campus got 98% of what they 
deserved under the BAP. 
That whole thing fell apart in the previous fiscal year when the shortfall is 
over 200 million $ and 
you can't hide that much. So what essentially happened there is that with $200m 
moving form state 
support to tuition it had wildly unanticipated impacts on specific campuses, and 
we couldn't just 
simply say "tough luck, this is what the BAP generated, you're out of luck and 
you'll have to make 
do". So we did and after the fact adjustment which caused a great deal of 
unhappiness and we're 
sort of trying to get out from under that. But the point is in terms of the new 
BAP. Let me just 
indicate what the new BAP will do. 

First of all the new BAP begins with the money we expect to have. We are going 
to begin with 
an expectation of the state revenue that we are going to be able to distribute. 
But the other 
very radical new idea is that we never really looked at what the major 
functional categories 
are. Even research, what we're doing now is we start with the state allocation, 
and we say that 
state allocation is going to be devoted to a number of very specific functional 
purposes. 
Undergraduate education, critically important. Graduate education, graduate non-
medical education, 
and when we talked about that initially, we were going to talk about all of the 
graduate in one 
functional category there was strong feeling on the part of the advisory 
committee that Joe sits 
on that we should divide that between masters level and doctorate level 
education which we 
will be doing. 

First professional is code for medical and related fields. Why did we create a 
separate 
functional category? A - because, it's quite unique functionally. The costs of 
these kinds of 
program are significantly higher and quite different. It is also important 
because those fields 
have an enormous resonance and benefit outside of just the university in its 
educational mission. 
We have major hospitals in Stony brook, and Brooklyn, and Syracuse, so here we 
are entering the 
public service arena in a big way and it is very important for us to identify 
the resources we 
are putting into that area, because amongst other things, this will show the 
world the role that 
we are playing in these critical areas. So by very explicitly identifying the 
major functions 
of the university A it gives us a policy tool and we are not necessarily 
committed until the 
end of time about having exactly the same amount of money or even the same 
proportional amount 
in every one of those functional categories, but it also makes it a lot easier 
to explain to 
the world what it is we are doing with our money.  

So that is one of the great conceptual breakthroughs that separate the new BAP 
from the old 
BAP. The other issue is to have the most intelligent algorithms within each of 
those 
functional categories. In research, we are almost certainly going to apply the 
same concept 
we have right now. We're going to still distribute the research funds in 
proportion to the 
volume of external research funding. In the undergraduate area we will probably 
either have 
something like a 6 cell matrix, because something like 6 of the cells were 
undergraduate 
cells, but with new coefficients, and this time the coefficients will not have 
dollar signs. 
If they have dollar signs you can generate more of an obligation that we could 
actually fund. 
Coefficients are going to be weights. 

So essentially each campus will draw its share of the undergrad pool in 
proportion to the 
students on it's campus that go through the different cells and essentially what 
it amounts 
to is that the combination of the value of the coefficients and the number of 
students going 
through a cell represent 12% of the total. We will use exactly the same approach 
to the graduate 
programs. And the medical probably will not, and we will probably distribute the 
money in the 
medical arena in proportion to the enrollment at those institution. But we will 
probably have 
some coefficient differences between the major categories. Medicine dentistry 
pharmacy 
optometry and veterinary medicine. But within each of those subcategories 
whatever the 
proportion of a campus is, i.e. Buffalo has 23% of the medical students; they 
will receive 
23% of he funds in that particular category. 

The only remaining issue is that there will be now, and there has never been 
before, a little 
P component and we are discussing the size of the somewhere between 2-3% which 
has been the 
consensus, which has been set aside to reward campuses if they meet more 
specific performance 
objectives. We haven't fully agreed on the specific amount of money set aside of 
that and we 
certainly haven't agreed on what the drive is of the little P allocation, and 
the early 
thinking is in the undergrad area, retention and graduation rates. The notion is 
to reward 
improvement. In the graduate we are going to try to find qualitative variables 
can be used. 

Finally in terms of implementation, what we want to do is this: Clearly in the 
coming fiscal 
year, we're going to try to keep everybody home, so I think that the strong 
sentiment across 
system administration and the advisory committee is that we will as much as 
possible and 
hopefully if we get a stable budget from the state we will try to keep every 
campus stable 
at its current funding level, but probably in the following fiscal year, 06' we 
will begin 
implementing the new BAP, and from the baseline set from present funding levels, 
the campuses 
will go off on their expected trajectories. And that is what happened in 1998. 
When we 
implemented the new BAP in 98', we pretty much kept everybody at the holding 
level that they 
were in 1997. But after that the new concepts kicked in and it probably had a 
significant 
difference. That’s pretty much it, I don't know if I’ve made it clearer or 
murkier.

(Questions)

Peter Knuepfer: I have the problem that I fear if we give poor campuses less 
money they 
are not going to do better, that is my first problem. If you have performance 
indicators 
in here which will afterwards reward people for getting better, I don't think 
that you'll 
actually get improvement, I fear it will be that the poorer ones get poorer and 
the richer 
ones get richer. Second problem is, don't we have a focus in our institution 
concerning 
the state mainly with undergraduate education? If we have the baskets divided as 
6 equally 
important baskets and I'm sure that the ship is important, but I think the major 
service we 
do for the state of New York is undergraduate education.

A: These are both good questions and probably good for the entire group. The 
decision on 
how much money is in each basket will initially be driven by the amount of money 
that is 
currently spent


Jim McElwaine: [Attendance]

Pres. Hildreth: Now its time in our agenda for sector reports. Will the leaders 
of the 
sectors please have their notes and a form so you can type them up and we can 
have a 
record of those following the meeting? If a topic has already been covered, hen 
I would 
suggest that perhaps you might not have to spend as much time on it as the first 
person 
who mentioned the topic unless you have an additional dimension of it. Why don't 
we 
start off with the university senators?

Bill Baumer: The discussion at the university center opened with some remarks 
about library 
support, 2 counts there. One is simply library funding second library space 
particularly 
a concern about the cost of periodicals and dependency of the upswing in cost 
here to 
drive down the available funds for monographs with serious questions about the 
availability 
of the latter. Also questions raised and things that need to be pursued 
regarding to 
what happens if we go to electronic distribution of materials, who ultimately 
controls 
these, who ultimately controls excess and most importantly who controls the 
archives. 
Second issue that was discussed was the student budget allocation procedures and 
some 
issues were raised there. 

One was that there is too much pressure on out of state students just to get out 
of state 
tuition payments but that was judged by the major issue, because we have a very 
small 
percentage, all of us, of out of state students, particularly at the 
undergraduate level. 
Second thing that was raised was whether we are going to measure research 
achievements in 
terms of funds that are gained on a grant basis and if that is the case who is 
going to 
count the grant dollars, and which grant dollars get counted. Will it be only 
projects in 
the research foundation, will it be both research foundation and local projects, 
what about 
donations of any kind, a number of competitions here that need to be addressed, 
and in 
particular.

We have some careful allocation of bonuses, if you will, for the campuses that 
recognize 
percentage sized increase not just absolute dollar size increase in research 
funding. 
Also concern there that the real pressure is just getting more research funds it 
might be 
that we would be pursuing research that is financially effective, but not 
necessarily what 
we ought to be pursing in terms of advancing knowledge. So we've got some 
problems there 
on perhaps applied research vs. basic research although it was not formulated 
that way. 
There were some suggestions in that discussion what that sort of problem is and 
that 
requires some attention. We also raised the question that programs like the 
humanities 
and others that really don't get a lot of grant money would be significantly 
disadvantaged, 
or pushed out of the picture, as it were. Further discussion turned to mention 
the quality 
of undergraduate programs so there was some support in mentioning these by post 
baccalaureate 
surveys of graduates, and in particular by asking them to give us evaluations of 
how 
satisfactory, how useful, how valuable they found their undergraduate programs 
to be. The 
only other topic that was pursued at any length was tuition. Generally 
expressing our support 
for the notion of annual percentage increases in tuition that are applied to the 
cost of 
living with the understanding that the legislature does the same thing on the 
state side of 
the budget in terms of state funds, and with the further understanding that if 
the legislature 
doesn't come through, we ain't got a deal. 

[Report from comprehensive colleges]

Achim: The general agreement was unanimous that the [provosts] initiative on 
faculty is to 
be applauded, and that the task force report is indeed very important if it 
becomes implemented. 
And it was unanimously applauded because we emphasized benefits of such 
guidelines and we 
feel that it underscores the provosts commitment to resource allocation, and 
development of 
strategies to support in the following areas in the following areas, mainly: 
Teaching, Scholarship, 
community professional service, and recognition of service. Please allow me to 
get through 
those 4 before we get to the BAP and Mission Review discussion. First on 
Teaching, we have 
a concern: Who actually is teaching on our campuses. For this concern, we want 
to emphasize 
that if faculty don't get a voice in developing and shaping at an early stage of 
the guidance 
documents, then these documents become void. They actually are hollow shapes, 
they will not be 
implemented, and the institution will not feel bound by it. Faculty will have to 
live with the 
consequences. Their stakes are higher than anybody else's on campus and if we 
want Mission 
Review 2 to be followed by Mission Review 3 the faculty are going to have to be 
the ones we 
live with and they know this therefore they impact will b much bigger. 

The most stable element, contrary to general perception on faculty, is not the 
buildings or 
the shapes, it's the faculty and that means full time teaching faculty. Now that 
leads to the 
problem that we have a growing number of adjuncts on our campuses which have a 
lack of allegiance, 
and who will not be actually be impacted by this document. Now the problem which 
we identified is, 
that in all these areas teaching service etc. circa scholarship, we are not able 
to count on adjuncts. 
The growing number and the legalization doesn't make the number better whether 
we call them 
lecturers, or whether we give them 3 year contracts because they have been 
teaching there, its 
classifying them as non-faculty and that means all that we have identified as 
collaboration which 
we have to have in order to get  this wonderful document to become life, will 
not happen. 

The level of compensation is a problem, because if we want to get adjuncts, we 
at least want to 
get the best adjuncts. But if we don't pay them a living wage, how can we expect 
them to do even 
more than they are currently doing by getting engaged in college mission, being 
teaching or other. 
That leads us also to the faculty, because the faculty could also get disengaged 
if the level of 
compensation is not similarly raised. Similarly, unlike teachers in New York 
City, salaries are 
not pegged to happy. 

We actually have a lot of unhappy faculty and the retention document can specify 
as many rules 
as you want, if you are not able to keep the cost effective way to keep a 
faculty member would 
not just be to publish guidelines but also to guarantee the right level of 
compensation. 

Now we have index tuition now, which takes care of this. But there is no such 
index for faculty 
compensation. Next topic was scholarship, and here we also feel that the ability 
to do meaningful 
scholarship is increasingly undermined by class size growing and uncompensated 
mandates such as 
assessment and others. Service. The time factor is really important. If people 
are teaching an 
increasing number of courses, which seems to be a growing problem in 
comprehensive colleges, then 
you cannot expect them to actually get more involved in service. 

And last but not least the recommendation and the meaningful recognition of 
campus we applaud that 
this document actually calls for the re cognition because this recognition would 
go not just to 
institution but to SUNY as a whole and if we did a better job in that direction, 
we might be able 
to attain more faculty and get better students. All P's we feel have a little 
punishment in the 
back halls. We would actually hope that we are professionals, that we would 
actually go by awards 
and honors we don't really have a committee of that name but rewards actually 
engage people and 
make people do more instead of punishing them which makes them do less. And I 
don't think that 
anyone of this system wants anybody to do less. Now in the P's we said that we 
have to also 
address class size, because if we have retention rates as the sole indicator of 
what makes a 
good undergraduate institution, then we would have to decrease class sizes. And 
if you decrease 
class sizes, you'll have to hire more faculties. If there is no money for hiring 
more faculty, 
you'll actually have more adjuncts which means the left hand is going to take 
what the right 
hand is going to give. 

The major disconnect between the goals and the impact of such funding formula 
became a 
concern of our sector. If it is possible that these 2 could be brought together, 
we are 
actually asking for a general vision, and the general assessment of the 
institution as a  
feel that adjuncts are not able and not paid to do this because they are by 
definition not 
stewards, not for the students nor for the system and we want stewards for both 
of us. The 
question is and the question to the provost is, is it actually possible to do 
this in the 
current state of the institution? What kind of vision do you have for this 
institution? 
Do you see the institution mainly as a research institution, or mainly as an 
undergraduate 
education institution? And in which one of these two do you want to be excellent 
because 
allocation can only go one way or the other. Now in this realm we had the 
concern that there 
could be perceived a shift towards a 2 tier system like the California system 
where you 
would have the stellar institutions which would stand on a level with Harvard on 
the one 
side, and then you have the others all in the same club, whether they be 
community, 
comprehensive, or technological colleges which are funded to a far lesser 
degree, and 
what worries us in this realm is that the baskets seem to be unequally 
distributed because 
the undergraduate basket is not in size known to us. Coming to the end of the 
report, we 
are actually asking the Chancellor, and the provost, where are we? If we take 
into 
consideration that the new BAP formula is supposed to by graduation rate assess 
our 
institution, how are we actually thinking about those new population issues, 
besides 
California, we are the state with the largest influx of immigrants? Immigrants 
are going 
to be in our schools and if they want to transfer from one to the other, to give 
an example 
quoted was to Buffalo, why should we actually be hurt by that if it's good for 
the students 
and the retention rate in swing might actually be a better indicator. We also 
act whether 
we do the right things to address those new populations. BAP does not seem to do 
that yet, 
and we hope that it will eventually do that. So in this round, we would actually 
like to 
ask our president Joe, to ask for some for of institutionalized response to 
this. Joe, 
can we actually ask you to get the direct response of our concerns from the 
provost? 

Pres. Hildreth: All of the concerns, or just the last one?
         
      [laughing]

Achim: Well, I gave you the shortcut, I could give you the full list, but it's a 
little longer. 

Pres. Hildreth: Just give it to me in writing, and I will send it to him and ask 
for a response. 

Achim: I think that would satisfy what the general consensus of my group was, 
and that 
concludes my report.

President: For those of you who are new to the senate, what we like to do when 
we 
can is to have Chancellor King here so that when you give your sector reports 
the 
Chancellor can respond during this meeting. And so that’s not always possible 
given 
the Chancellor's schedule. So what we do instead of that is take the sector 
reports 
and pass them along, but I can certainly do that with Provost Salins. 

[Sector report from Health Science centers]

Peter Nickerson: The health science sector discussed the BAP, and we talked 
about performance 
with a small P. For example, what criteria might be used when evaluating first 
professional 
degrees, for example, retention of graduates within the state, this is one of 
the functions 
and missions is the health sciences is to produce sufficient practitioners. So 
board 
scores were also a possibility, match choices for graduate study. Success in 
public service 
in undeserved area was other aspects. For undergraduates, we have unique types 
of interest 
in allied health and nursing, so one of the questions we had was what are some 
of the 
formulas in terms of the criteria to be used would be appropriate for those 
area. Tuition. 
Now, many of the health science programs are generating additional tuition each 
year. So 
we are concerned about affordable access for students to our programs. And also 
in addition 
to the regular students, because a lot of the students have pretty hefty student 
loans, 
form their undergraduate colleges as well, and also we are concerned about the 
enrollment 
for underrepresented groups. Is this going to increase tuition, which for 
medical schools 
is $2000 a year, is this going to have a significant adverse effect. We also 
talked about 
service learning. Service learning especially benefits in the health sciences in 
the 
undergraduate and graduate baskets. This is a very important part of the health 
sciences 
in terms of some of the plusses that we do, providing service. We very much like 
the 
faculty development initiative. The health sciences has rather different types 
of tracks, 
and we want to be sure that there is sufficient time on campus for discussion of 
the 
faculty development so we urge that the dates be modified, I'm sure that’s going 
to happen 
in terms of allowing us adequate time for discussion. Of course we want to be 
sure that 
our laboratories don't fall down. And the maintenance of infrastructure is there 
in addition 
to our needs regarding facilities, but also in generating more research dollars. 
Something 
that’s always of interest is performance review of senior administrators. 
Finally because 
of the state needs in terms of areas such as allied health and nursing, we want 
to be sure 
that there is sufficient enrollment in colleges, public colleges to meet the 
needs of the 
state. That’s our report. 

[Colleges of technology]

Ann Donnelly: We, in small print who are the lowest paid and have the highest 
workload 
among the group, are grateful to be a little better off and applaud the spirit 
of the 
budget allocation process. Mission Review 2 will allow us to show the unique 
character 
of our institutions and we see that as the enabler to help us achieve our 
missions. We 
the faculty are focused on transitions to our 4 year degrees and new program 
development 
while maintaining our associate degree and certificate program. The faculty in 
our 
institutions have been involved in Mission Review 2, and understand the MOU sets 
the 
context for the future, and cements our starting point we expect to be held 
accountable 
and welcome it.  We are beginning to enjoy the new campus culture generated by 
the 
transition to 4-year programs but recognize and support the value of our 
associate’s 
degrees and certificate degrees to the workforce as well as transfer. 

[Specialized colleges and statutory]

Kathleen: The first thing we wanted to say is, last year if you recall, at the 
last 
meeting we had, we had asked if it would be possible for the chancellor to 
intercede 
for the statutory colleges particularly at Alfred because there were problems 
there, 
and we are happy to report that as a result of our resolution that indeed the 
governing 
is back in the college itself and not out in the university and that’s 
wonderful. And 
so we did take time to talk about that. It has improved the feeling on campus 
for the 
college of ceramics, and what we'd like to see happen, and perhaps we can do 
this when 
the chancellor comes this evening, is to see if we can get some sort of 
clarification 
of what the relationship of the statutory colleges are to their host colleges, 
because 
right now the host colleges can be a host problem. And to re-articulate the 
relationship, 
rebound the partnership of the statutory colleges to their host colleges. The 
second 
thing we spoke about, I know we spoke about the adjuncts, but on one particular 
campus 
they're having a little bit of different situation where they are giving 
lecturer positions, 
full-time one year positions to be renewable and we were talking about this as a 
way of 
circumventing teenier. When we have a lecturer, the person does not have to 
become a part 
of committees, just as adjuncts don't have to, they don't do advisement and 
again, a lot 
of it falls on the full time faculty.  So we are very concerned, as everyone is 
about 
the adjuncting and the ways that we see full time faculty being circumvented. 
And last 
but not least we talked about the problem of consultation, where we are seeing 
some top 
down management instead of involving the faculty in key situations where the 
faculty 
should be involved. And we didn't get to talk about the BAP.

[Campus governance leaders]

Ken: [applauds Joe] We couldn't get to BAP, because we had to get through 
process and 
that is Mission Review 2, which faculty governance structures have or have not 
been 
involved on individual campuses. If it's appropriate you will have a resolution 
tomorrow 
for the body to consider on the subject. I'd like to express for all of you that 
there 
seems to be some campuses where faculty governance structures have been 
intimately 
involved with the generation of the guidance documents. Others where there has 
not 
even been a passing relationship in the generation of such documents and they've 
already left campus. That is unfortunate in the extreme because CGLs recognize 
that 
at the very least, there documents are going to become the basis for system 
administrations visiting teams to create a draft MOU which they are going to 
bring to 
the campus. With this particular process unlike the last one, it makes the 
guidance 
documents all that more important. So there will be a resolution where we ask 
the assistance 
of this body to remind every president through system administration of their 
responsibility 
to include CGLs and to include local governance structures in the process of 
Mission Review 2.  

President: One of the things that we have been working on for quite some time 
and I'm glad 
you were able to acknowledge it was I like to have this very closely knit 
relationship between 
the campus governance leaders and the senate. For us to be effective it's really 
got to happen. 
You can't have information being given to the senators if it doesn't get 
distributed to the campus 
governance organization which in tern informs the campus and then comes back to 
the senate and 
then comes back to the senate through the senator and it's nice to have you here 
and I'm enjoying 
the relationship that we have. And one of the things that have obviously come up 
during our 
discussions is that there does need to be an effort made to involve campus 
governance organizations 
in a significant way in the Mission Review guidance document, and hopefully 
that’s one piece of 
action that could come out of this meeting that will help everyone. The other 
thing that I think is 
useful is the fact that we are sharing, even before BAP is finished, so that 
people can be aware of 
that and share it with their colleagues and in tern get hose concerns back to 
me, and hopefully 
tonight when Chancellor King is speaking it would be nice to get a question on 
BAP and a question 
on Mission Review along with some of the there questions which I'm sure would be 
generated from his 
remarks which would cover some system activities that we haven't talked about 
yet. 

Stephanie Gross:  I wanted to apologize about being late, I enjoy coming to 
these meetings, and 
usually I’d like to be here the whole time, but unfortunately classes get in the 
way. [Laughing] 
I just wanted to give you some information about the student assembly. Nov 5Th. 
to the 7Th. is 
our fall conference, it's in Catskills Friar tuck inn so please if you keep in 
touch of your 
student government leaders, please let them know we are shooting for full 
attendance. This 
summer we had 75 of the delegates out of 112 and we are shooting for full 
attendance. 
Statutory and specialized schools are the hardest to contact so please help us 
out. So 
far it's been a very good start to the year in my 2nd year as president. And 
second semester 
I’ll probably be in Albany doing my student teaching, so I'm looking forward to 
a very 
productive year. But the real thing that I came to talk about was the tuition 
plan, and a 
copy of it is in your packets. I just wanted to give you a little bit of an 
overview. I 
know I talked about it when you were at Upstate Medical last year and I just 
wanted to 
touch upon it again and I suppose lobby you a little bit on it. But just to give 
you a 
background, it was last year in December when the Chancellor contacted me to see 
if we 
could come up with a definition for a rational tuition policy, or plan. And I 
told him 
immediately, there is no such thing as rational tuition increases because 
students think 
of rational tuition decreases. So what we did come up with was a start of a 
tuition plan, 
and many times constant consultation. And what the student assembly came up with 
was this. 
And there are still a few points where the Chancellor and I are not on the same 
page, 
but he is still working with me, he hasn't closed his doors. I really appreciate 
the comradeship 
we've developed, and the comfortable atmosphere to work with him. What I'm 
asking for is your 
feedback and if you do agree with our points, if you would write a resolution so 
he knows 
how you feel, so he has your feedback. When I brought this to our campuses in 
spring, 
44 delegates supported it, and that was a great majority. I can tell you the 
campuses that 
didn't and they are Potsdam, Buffalo state, Binghamton, and Rockland community 
college, 
because it doesn't effect community colleges. But all the campuses after extreme 
debate, 
a lot of the campuses are really excited to support it. The few points however, 
that differ 
from the Chancellors points, I know he talked about it at Oneonta when he did an 
informal 
presentation about what he is hoping to support, which is talking about how the 
legislation 
needs to keep state support at flat. That this is impossible if they are going 
to keep 
decreasing state support for SUNY. And that is something we are going to 
support, but we are 
also saying that we need to increase state support. I believe one of the sectors 
mentioned it 
that if you are going to keep tuitions to rise on the same playing filed, to at 
least keep it 
level. You can't keep decreasing state support, and the second part is, where 
the Chancellor 
has said 4 years till graduation, we choose the word "anticipated" graduation, 
and that is simply 
to take into account the fact that some programs due to the lack of seamless 
transfer, or the 
fact that some programs are harder to get into just because there are so many 
students, that 
we don't think student should be penalized just because they cannot get into 
their program. 
So, anticipated date of graduation kind of leaves that opening for the few 
exceptions to the rule, 
mostly in education where it takes many students an extra semester to finish, 
the national average 
is 6 years to graduate, but SUNY students, as the latest statistic states that 
40% of SUNY students 
graduate in 4 years, a majority of the students, it is not taking them 4 years, 
it is taking them 
longer. Well we don't want to not encourage them to finish in 4 years; we want 
to not penalize 
them for things out of their control. Those are the main 2 points. Of course the 
tuition agreement, 
which is something that the Chancellor and I strongly agree on keeping it so 
it's an equity issue. 
It all has to do with equity, the fact that I will pay for my tuition, and the 
student of tomorrow 
will pay for theirs. That seems to be it. I hope that if you can't support every 
point I’ve made, 
which I completely understand, I ask that you do support what could. Thank you.

President: So during our executive committee meeting tomorrow morning, we will 
also look at this 
and see if we can come up with a supportive resolution and bring that to the 
floor. And now it's 
my pleasure to be able to introduce our next speaker. Our next speaker is Patty 
Francis; many of 
you remember her from her speech on assessment last year during one of our 
plenary meetings. She 
is assistant Provost, charged with leading the implementation of the enhanced 
campus based 
assessment, and she's also been intimately involved in the development of the 
faculty development 
Pass-force report. So I thought it would be informative and useful to have her 
come and speak 
about these two issues today.

Patty Francis: [Greetings] I just want to give you a little background on the 
Faculty development 
initiative. This is actually now over 2 years old, and I worked on this in the 
very beginnings, 
in the summer of 2002 I was doing an academic [affairs] fellowship at system, 
and worked with a 
group of staff to develop a white paper. We also conducted a survey during that 
summer on faculty 
development practices. And then went on to develop the white paper which was the 
basis for the 
work that the task force formed by provost Salins in the fall of 2004, he went 
on to form that 
task force and then they really have worked very hard over the last couple of 
years and I 
haven't actually had that much to do with the faculty development task force 
except at the 
end, last year I did another fellowship and I was brought in to kind of help re-
work the 
final draft. 

So, I guess the bottom line about all of this is that we have a lot of 
information available 
from our campuses about what's going on with regard to faculty development and 
that is one 
of the things that the report tries to convey. As Provost Salins said earlier, 
one of the 
objectives would be to identify best practices across the university. And 
another thing that 
we took great pains to try to do was to look at faculty development practices in 
sectors 
because based on the recognition that different sectors had different missions, 
and that 
this might be reflected in the faculty development practices and the RPT 
processes that the 
campuses offer and encourage on their campuses. And I should also acknowledge 
that more 
than this [points to handout] in this room may have been on this task force but 
certainly 
Joe Hildreth, was on it, Ann Huot co-chaired the group last year, and allot of 
good people 
have contributed to this work. 

But if you look at the charge, basically what the provost asked the task force 
to do was to 
examine and discuss the broad range of issues related to the ongoing 
intellectual and 
professional development o the state university faculty and again examine and in 
fact 
recommend best practices that might be followed other campuses, and also to make 
recommendations 
regarding policy guidelines and best practices appropriate to particularly 
address concerns 
that might emerge out of this task force examination  of these important issues. 

The final report was just sent out about a week ago to campus president and 
campus CEOs as 
well as to faculty governance leaders, but the basic goal now is to have 
campuses review this 
document. Feedback will go directly to Ann Hoot’s office and then that 
information will be 
compiled for the final draft. I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about 
the major 
recommendations that emerged out o this task force. For example, the first 
couple of 
recommendations directly bear upon current o resisting faculty development 
practices on 
campus, so of example the first recommendation says that faculty development 
efforts should 
be lead by distinguishes faculty members clearly charged with responsibility but 
providing 
vision leadership, and coordination. 

One of the things that the task force found is pretty well summarized on this 
one page 
listing of results from the last survey in particular, is that on many camases 
there is 
not one person who has been given responsibility for coordinating these efforts, 
and the 
task force thought that was a really important idea that campuses might want to 
adopt if 
appropriate. The task force also found that on many campuses there's not even 
one office 
that coordinates teaching or learning activities, and that seems to be a model 
that works 
very well not only on some of our campuses hat do that but also across the 
nation we also 
did a review of good faculty development practices across the nation, and found 
that that 
seems to be a good model on campuses across the nation. 

The second cluster of recommendations has to do with institutional expectations 
for faculty
and also communication about faculty development activity. One thing that struck 
me by 
looking at the results that were coming in form these various surveys is that 
not all 
colleges even appear to have clear written guidelines for junior faculty in 
terms of what 
the need to do, their research and teaching. Something that this task force felt 
very 
strongly about that its very will in keeping with this particular meeting and 
what you 
give a lot of your time to is the issues of faculty service. It seemed like the 
surveys 
that came out asking campuses to say what expectations do you have for faculty 
service 
it seemed to indicate that they were very vague, it was like" well we expect 
everybody 
to do service" but for one thing the expectations were very vague and probably 
very striking 
was the fact that there were very few incentives in place for faculty service. 

The next 2 recommendations, 5 and 6, really have to do with making information 
available 
about whets going on both on campuses, and so for example recommendation 5 each 
campus should 
post information about professional development activities on its website, and 
many campuses 
web-sits, you'll see that many of them have something on their side about 
faculty development 
and professional development activities, but the task force also felt that 
system administration 
could do a better job of kind of bringing all of this information into one 
location and so 
there was this recommendation that SUNY system develop an E-portal system that 
could bring 
all of this information into one location. 

In some ways, perhaps the most important recommendation that emerged out of this 
task force 
had to do with recommendations bearing upon our junior faculty in particular the 
RPT processes. 
As I indicated earlier, I think some of us were surprised that there are some 
campuses that 
don't even have clear guidelines for RPT, so it seemed appropriate to endorse a 
set of 
recommendations that bear directly upon that issue. 

Peer mentoring, the 9THRecommendation appears important, although I know that at 
Cortland, 
we've tried to do this in a number of different ways and I know that it's not an 
easy task, 
but a very successful approach to keeping junior faculty of course is peer 
mentoring. 
Matching your junior faculty with a more experienced senior faculty member 
perhaps even 
in the same discipline. 

The last set of recommendations has to do with faculty recognition rewards. One 
subset of 
this committee in fact did a survey of other big systems across the country and 
one thing 
that emerged very clearly was SUNY in particular does a very good job of 
rewarding its 
distinguished (with a small and a large D) faculty and staff. The excellence 
awards 
for example. We recognize not only faculty, but also professional staff, 
librarians and 
I think the introduction of the newest award that made its debut this past year 
for 
faculty service in particular recognizing the role of faculty and faculty 
governance is 
another good example of what a good job SUNY does in recognizing its faculty and 
staff 
members. 

The task force thought that perhaps SUNY system itself could do a better job of 
maybe 
making this information known. For example, recommendation 16, SUNY system 
should establish 
an honors database informing the SUNY community of the availability of 
prestigious national 
and international awards, and also identify SUNY faculty who received these 
awards. Overall, 
these people should get more recognition, and as much honor as we can heap upon 
them and the 
campuses and system administration should search for ways to better acknowledge 
these 
individual contributions. And I in particular like this last recommendation, 
because it's 
basically saying we should use these people, we have really great contributors 
in all manners 
of performance, and we should use these people as best we can to help us further 
university 
wide goals and include these people in the important policy discussions which 
are going on, 
such as general education assessment, which we'll talk about in just a second, 
or teacher 
education. 

Runi: Almost everything boils down to money, I'm just wondering if there is any 
way of 
getting some of your recommendations that do require some investment, doesn't 
have to be 
a large one, to be built into BAP itself. Faculty development decision is an 
important thing.

Patty: Lets talk first about implementation, I don't really feel comfortable 
talking about 
BAP because I haven't been working on it, but maybe Ann would feel comfortable 
saying a 
thing or two about it. Some of these recommendations clearly involve money and 
involve 
campus decisions as to whether they're going to put their money here vs. there. 
I know at 
SUNY Cortland several years ago, we and the provost made the conscious decision 
that some 
resources just had to be put into faculty development, and it isn't that much, 
and I'm 
sure it's not enough, but I'm sure it was enough to provide some release time in 
a stipend 
to a faculty member who kind of oversees this sort of thing, and I think she's 
retired now, 
and she continues to do that, and we have a little office, quite modest, but 
it's an office 
with some books on faculty development and that sort of thing. A lot of these 
recommendations 
do require some resources, but I don't think that they are huge resources. A lot 
of these 
recommendations don't require any resources, unless you want to count 
publishing, the amount 
of money it would take to publish procedures for RPT, and maybe holding some 
workshops over 
the course of the year. These kind of actions which help us hold on to the 
junior faculty 
that we've spent a lot of money recruiting and hiring that’s more than worth the 
expense. I 
do know that once all the feedback that has been received from the campuses 
regarding this
document, this is going to be turned over to provost Salins, and I know he will 
be putting 
some staff together to talk about concrete ways, or planning for the 
implementation, and 
that would include some attempt to determine how much would be needed from a 
resource 
perspective. 

Ken: I just wanted to make a note that we appreciate release time for this, we 
need to 
mentor the new faculty, but if we're the faculty mentoring the new faculty this 
is more 
of a burden on our faculty loads, so I appreciate your comment about the release 
time. 

John: That plays into a number of issues that came up in our sector meetings 
this morning, 
I’d like to know in more detail what you had in mind when you said that there 
are 
incentives for faculty service. I don't know about anyone else here, but I 
didn't have 
to beat a lot of other people out to become a SUNY senator [laughing]. That on 
top of a 
lot of things I'm also doing on campus, I can't be released from my workload 
because 
there just isn't space for it, there isn't money to allocate. I'm a full 
professor, and 
aide from the fact that I love doing this, what other incentives can be put in?

Patty: Well, I think again, this is a good opportunity for you to read the 
report, 
because we do talk about what some campuses are doing, for example, one campus 
reported 
building service on the faculty senate into the DSI process. 


[CD exchange]

Joe: [Introduces Chancellor]

Chancellor King: Joe has memorized my speech to chambers of commerce [Laughing]. 
I have 
the answers to your concerns, if you want to write these down the first answer 
is yes, 
the second one is 6, the third answer is on Tuesday [Laughing]. I understand 
somebody, 
or maybe more than somebody, is concerned that I wasn't here earlier and I 
apologize. 
I go where I'm told [Laughing] and apparently I wasn't clear when you needed to 
have 
me here, I would have made arrangements to do that now, so the floor is yours 
and I 
will do my best to answer your questions. 

Bill: In the new BAP, there are several areas that need to be funded. Is there a 
risk that the legislature will deem one or more of these areas over-funded and 
we 
will be attacked?

Chancellor King: There is always a risk that the legislature could do anything. 
What we've tried to do, and I’ll tell you I’ve had a chance to sit in for parts 
of a couple of the meeting with the group that we have assembled. What we've 
tried 
to do is first of all learn from the first BAP. It was the first time an effort 
of 
that dimension had been attempted certainly in system this size, and like 
anything 
else when you try something out at first some things are working, and some 
things 
don't and you go to school on it and try to make it better. The second thing is 
in 
the current structure, and a number of assumptions were made that as it's turned 
out over time have proved not to be true. One of the assumptions was that there 
would be growing state funding to match growing enrollment. And in part, the 
current BAP created a set of expectation that we were not able to fulfill, 
because 
we don't control how much we get from the government, but as you all know that 
amount that we've been getting form the government has not been increasing, at 
least on any relationship to our enrollment growth. 

The second is that there were financial incentives in the BAP that have actually 
done their job. I can tolerate and appreciate why there might be other 
explanation 
for things that happened but, it is quite clear that when the board and the 
administration created a notion that said first and foremost campuses get to 
keep 
the tuition that they generate, that created a financial incentive for campuses 
to attempt to grow their enrollment and they have. The match for research 
dollars. 
Well, we haven't been able to fulfill 100% of the intended match; we've done a 
fairly good job. That too we think has had some impact on stimulating greater 
efforts and attracting research dollars. But what we know is that to the extent 
that those incentives have had their intended impact, there are some other 
behaviors that we want to see enhanced. Most significantly encouraging improved 
graduation and retention rates. So, to the extent that we can generate some 
incentives within the structure to encourage those kinds of institutional 
behaviors, 
I think that is one of the things the committee is looking at. So, what the new 
BAP is intending to do is first of all, learn from the existing process and how 
it worked, and where it doesn't work, and second to construct a new model that 
will create the incentives that we want to see across the university, achieve 
a number of important larger objectives. 

# 1 to be predictable, # 2 to be transparent. # 3 to be fair, # 4 to not create 
financial expectations that we can't be assured of achieving, and that one is 
not 
inconsequential. For those of you who followed some of our financial issues in 
the 
last year or so, one of the things that happened in the fiscal year where we had 
to take a $180m reduction in state funding but attempt to replace those dollars 
with the tuition increase, there were a couple of things that happened. Number 
one, that was the plan, that the university would raise tuition $1200, for 
esident undergraduate students, and that the revenue generated by that tuition 
would replace dollar for dollar the reduction in state support that was 
occasioned 
by the fiscal crisis that the state was, and frankly is still dealing with. What 
happened was the legislature came back and said we're only going to let you 
raise 
tuition $950. And so that shortfall of tuition created a rather significant 
crisis for us measured at about $40m. 

So if we had applied the BAP as we have in the past, we would have ended up 
with the university centers and the doctoral campuses losing enormous sums of 
money, not just incremental amounts. And the comprehensive colleges and the 
technology colleges because they were more tuition dependent, and tuition was 
going up $950, those campuses were enjoying not a windfall, but significant year 
over year increases, in total operating dollars. We had to make a decision and 
so we consulted with the board and with our presidents from all of the different 
sectors, and essentially realized and agreed that if we were to let the BAP run 
its course, that a number of our campuses would be sustaining year over year 
multi-million dollar reductions. 

So, we made a judgment that we were going to have to essentially set aside the 
BAP that year and we were going to end up moving money that would have normally 
gone to the comprehensive colleges and the technology colleges and move that 
toward the doctoral campuses in an effort to keep everybody even on a year by 
year basis and that’s essentially what we did, and we essentially achieved that 
objective. Were I to have to make the decision again, I'm not sure I would have 
made the same decision. The reason that we asked for the $50m this year was to 
replace that money, and to redirect it back into the base of the comprehensive 
and technology colleges. As you know the legislature approved a $50m 
appropriation, 
the governors and budget office were not sufficiently persuaded that there was 
actually sufficient resources to cover that so they initially announced that 
they
were going to impound 2/3 of that. They kept the appropriation alive, which is
good, but they only allowed us to draw 1/3 of that and all of that is going to
the comprehensive and technology colleges to replenish them the funds that we 
had to move last year. 

We just learned that they are prepared to release an additional sum, probably 
another 10-11million dollars, and that money too will go back to those campuses. 
Now, the reason I'm giving you this long explanation is part of the problem with 
the old BAP is it created this kind of situation. It didn't contemplate 
circumstances 
which we encountered 2 cycles ago. So what we're trying to do is build a new 
model, 
which will to the extent possible, insulate us from the kinds of dislocation 
that 
the current structure caused when we were confronted with that unfortunate but 
real crisis. So that’s what we're trying to do. 

Achim: We do have a growing concern, and that concern in our group was that the 
baskets are seen as something unequal. We are wondering whether undergraduate 
education is not losing its weight in the system by having those baskets looked 
at as if they were entities of the same standing. 

Chancellor King: First I have to tell you, I don't know enough about the 
technical 
weighting of the baskets. But what I do believe in the discussions that I have 
participated in is I think to the contrary. I think the intention is to assure 
that there is to the extent that we're able to do this as much support that we 
could 
drive, at the undergraduate side of the equation, as possible. There is 
certainly no 
intention to diminish funding for that part of our mission, and if anything, if 
we 
can find a way to strengthen it, we'd like to


Achim: In that same vein, retention came up, and part of the problem for us is 
that 
some schools should they improve, I think at Geneseo retention is at 98%, so the 
measure of progress might be a little bit difficult, and for the other side, if 
we 
actually do go with the retention direction we are afraid that we will have 
grade 
inflation because we'll try to keep our students and we don't take into 
consideration 
that we have a completely new set of students arriving on Ellis Island, and our 
new 
students who come here will need an education and they'll transfer in big 
numbers from 
one college to another and that would be something with by retention rate would 
actually 
hurt the individual campus where it actually a positive thing. Transferring 
should 
not hurt, neither parties. 

Chancellor King: Well, I think that your observations about using retention as 
an 
absolute measure are legitimate, and I would suspect that folks who are making 
these 
judgments have probably considered them. The same thing could be said for 
graduation 
rates, particularly understanding issues etc. I'll tell you that from my 
perspective, 
first we use the MOU's that were signed under the auspices of Mission Review and 
will 
be recreated when we complete Mission Review 2. I use those as the template for 
the 
evaluation of presidential performance. Included in all of that are targets for 
improvement in retention, graduation, etc. I have said probably to every 
president, 
at one time or another, that we were concerned and I remain concerned that 
retention 
is enormously important, It is not enough simply to attract students to our 
campuses, 
if we can't educate them and graduate them, and retention is obviously important 
measure along that road, and the longer the kids stay in, the more likely it is 
that 
they will graduate. So what I am trying to do is encourage the development of 
both 
programmatic support, faculty support, advising, all of the different tools 
campuses 
are using, to encourage retention. What we're looking for both across the 
university 
and at individual campuses is #1, attention to the issue. And #2, some measure 
of 
improvement. The real measure, if it's going to be a measure, will be year to 
year 
improvement, and what we may be looking at is across the board, everybody 
improved 
3% but 5 campuses improved 4%. And so you make some recognition that way. The 
risk 
of grade inflation, that's there, but we rely on you and your colleagues to do 
your part in grading appropriately. 

Peter Nickerson: Tuition. Tuition in a number of health sciences programs is 
increased regularly, over the recent years. Our sector was concerned about 
affordable 
access, and also the issue of enrollment for underrepresented groups because of 
that increase. 

Chancellor King: The increases at the medical schools that we have implemented 
are
actually part of a 4-year plan that was started in my 2nd year. And that plan 
was to increase the tuition $2000 per year over the course of 4 years at the 
medical schools. The reason for that in part was tied up with the issues with 
the hospitals, which are at least for the moment, fairly substantially resolved. 
And second the reality that we subsidize, when I say we, I mean the taxpayers, 
our state, subsidize medical students even those who pay the whole tuition, 
to the tune of about $50,000 per year. It costs about $70,000, maybe more to 
educate a medical student each year, and the new tuition is now $18,000, 
well the difference is the government subsidy. Private medical schools charge 
probably in the realm of $40,000-50,000 tuition. So we are committed to 
keeping our medical school tuitions as low as we're able but we also understand 
the marketplace out there, and we also understand the cost of medical education 
is very high. The amount of "subsidy" from taxpayers to a student who's an 
undergraduate at any of our comprehensive colleges is probably in the realm of 
$1800-2000 per student, so you see the difference. Those numbers sort of get 
lost sometimes in the discussion in terms of keeping our medical schools 
accessible 
and affordable to particularly minority students, and those from low-income 
families. 
One of the things that we've seen, the dean of the Buffalo law school came and 
made 
a wonderful presentation to our board of trustees about 2 years ago when the law 
school decided to ask for n increase in their tuition, and the point that he 
made, 
among others, was that the increased tuition revenue from those students who 
could 
afford to pay, gave the law school more resources to cover, through scholarship 
and 
other grants and aid, those students who could not afford to. And if you look at 
the public sector of private education, that’s exactly how it works. They have 
endowments etc. but for those student who come from families who are wealthy 
enough to afford the whole freight, whatever that might be, its those dollars 
that help subsidize the students who need the assistance, so I think that we 
need 
to be sensitive to that. I think that we are, and the other thing is for most 
aspiring medical doctors, that the access to loans and the availability to pay 
them back once they finish and are out in practice, is not inconsequential. I 
think the larger concern, very honestly is making sure that across the 
university, 
not just at the medical schools that the cost of education is affordable.

[meeting adjourns]

Saturday Morning
President: This morning I am pleased to have a visitor with us. We have the 
president 
of the faculty council of community colleges, Kimberly Reiser is here. Kimberly 
and 
I worked together on many different system committees and we've been through a 
lot 
together. 

Kimberly Reiser: [Greetings] When I started my presidency last year, I 
identified 
the themes to be community education, collaboration and inclusion. It was 
important 
to me that the faculty council opened up the line of communication with other 
groups, 
and began the process of creating authentic collaborations and partnerships for 
the 
purpose of advocating and advancing the community colleges in NY state. The 
council 
has a formal liaison relationship with many organizations. We particularly value 
our relationship with you, our faculty members of the UFS. In addition we have a 
strong and vital relationship with the student assembly, the presidents group, 
the NY community college trustees, the college business officers, and the 
institute for community college development at Cornell. Such collaborations are 
truly powerful, as evidence from last year dare I mention University wide 
assessment. 
We join hands, we work diligently, and we produced a rigorous and responsible 
protocol 
for assessment across the university sectors, which hopefully will serve the 
campus-based assessment already in place. This work was a true university 
effort. 
Faculty, students, presidents, chief academic officers, the provost and 
executive 
provost came together and truly listened to each other. Every voice was heard 
and 
every group was included. Communication collaboration, and inclusion. You should 
all be congratulated. Now, we look forward to another productive year for the 
council despite the disappointing actions of the governor in August and the 
legislature in September, regarding the state budget. Some of our colleges are 
talking about mid-year tuition hikes, but we remain hopeful that negotiations or
overrides after the election may prevent these hikes form happening. Last week, 
we were particularly heartened with the appointment of Father Cremins as chair 
of 
the board of trustees of the academic standards committee. Father Cremins has 
had 
a distinguished career in higher education. Last year, he was able to navigate 
the 
turbulent waters of university wide assessment, and support the faculty 
position. 
Throughout the academic standards meeting on Tuesday, Father Cremins called on 
Joe 
and Myself for input and feedback. This practice was virtually unheard of last 
year. 
The community college faculty look forward to working with you again on 
university 
wide initiatives including assessment, gear, act sheet, transfer, the faculty 
development task force recommendations, and the SUNY wide strategic plan. 
Lastly, 
I would like to say that the faculty council is pleased that you are beginning 
to 
discuss the formalization of our liaison relationship in your Bi-laws. The 
faculty 
council plenary meeting is next week at Onondaga community college and it should 
prove to be productive to have UFS 
liaisons in attendance. Our meeting will kick off with a talkback meeting with 
Chancellor King on Thursday evening. As usual our plenary will be a working 
meeting 
and we welcome any UFS delegate, or senator to attend. Thank you.

[Committee Reports]

Executive Committee, Jim McElwaine: The executive committee met this morning; we 
are presenting one item for your consideration. Let me describe both. There will 
be 
a resolution on endorsing a stable tuition plan, and we are also presenting you 
with 
instructions to a motion regarding the formalization of UFS liaisons. So first, 
to a 
very short motion, this motion is to resolve that the university faculty senate 
endorses a tuition plan that ensures students a stable tuition for at least 4 
years. 

President: The motion before the executive committee, that’s not going to 
require a 
second, has moved you. This is basically instruction that we would endorse a 
tuition 
plan that would ensure students a stable tuition for at least 4 years. This is 
in 
response to the presentation that Stephanie Gross gave yesterday. 

Ken: I absolutely agree with Peter that this doesn't help us very much in terms 
of 
what we've been asked to do. My proposed motion. Resolve that the university 
faculty 
senate instruct its president to initiate a conversation with both the president 
of 
the student assembly and the Chancellor of the state university of New York 
regarding 
a rational tuition plan. 

President: That will need a second before we discuss it, we got a second from 
Luther. 

Additional comment: Could I offer friendly amendment?  (Certainly) Could we 
include in 
there some wording about the senate rational tuition plan? I think we should 
include that 
as part of the discussion. 

Achim: I believe that we should refer back to our own document, because we 
actually 
started this whole process and this body, and we should refer back to our own 
document 
so that we don't get caught between those 2 sides. We have a position, and I 
think that 
both the chancellor's and Stephanie Gross's positions do not contradict our own 
position 
which means that we can stay with our document, and it's actually much clearer. 
If we just 
say we engaged in a conversation I think that’s not going to do the job because 
Stephanie 
Gross wants endorsement, and we are obviously not willing to give her a blank 
check 
endorsement because that would get us into a problematic situation. I would 
prefer that 
we would give encouragement, and that would be done if we were to refer back to 
our own 
document.   

Maureen: I wanted to agree with Achim’s remark. Since the senate did already 
endorse 
the task force report on rational fiscal policy, which did include rational 
tuition plan, 
that discussion and the specific recommendations about the index that’s been 
happening, 
I believe that it is beneficial for the senate to refer to that, and whatever we 
agree 
on today remember to stay consistent with what we agreed on last year.

President: Someone needs to be thinking about amending this so that we can 
reference it. 
Jim?

Jim McElwaine: I'll respond to Maureen. Our current policy is for index tuition, 
that 
is the phrase used in the rational fiscal policy recommendation. The chancellor 
no 
longer seems to support that. We cannot go on the record as recommending 
resolving a 
tuition policy between 3 individuals. We cannot do that. 

Bill: [Agrees with Jim] 

President: First of all we had an amendment to the constitution, and then there 
was an 
objection to it. We must vote on that before we proceed. This is Runi's 
amendment, and 
I think that this wording is what Runi had in mind, but first let me read the 
amendment 
that Ken proposed "Resolve that the university faculty senate instruct its 
president to 
initiate a conversation with both the president of the student assembly and the 
Chancellor 
of the state university of New York regarding a rational tuition plan for SUNY". 
The 
vote werewolf that the university faculty senate instruct its president to 
conduct a 
conversation, including references to the senates established policy regarding a 
rational 
fiscal policy, with the chancellor, and the president of the student assembly 
regarding a 
rational tuition plan for SUNY". Are going to take now is an amendment that Runi 
proposed 
that would add to the substitute:  Any objections? One objection. We will have 
to go to 
a vote. Whether to insert that amendment that was proposed by Ken. All in favor 
say I. 
Those not in favor say nay. I think the "Aye's" have it. So now we are 
discussing Ken's 
substitute as amended. And I will read that to you so that you're clear. Resolve 
that 
the university faculty senate instruct its president to conduct a conversation, 
including 
references to the senates established policy regarding a rational fiscal policy, 
with 
the chancellor, and the president of the student assembly regarding a rational 
tuition 
plan for SUNY".

President: Looks like we are ready to vote on the substitute motion. And the 
substitute 
is an amendment therefore it is voted on twice, once as an amendment, and the 
second 
time as new language for the original. So we'd have to pass it first, and then 
we'd 
have to vote on it a second time. So let me read the substitute for you, and 
then we 
will have a vote on that. "Resolve that the university faculty senate instruct 
its 
president to conduct a conversation, including references to the senates 
established 
policy regarding a rational fiscal policy, with the chancellor, and the 
president of 
the student assembly regarding a rational tuition plan for SUNY". All in favor 
of 
that say I, opposed Nay.  Aye's win.  Ok we are now ready to vote on this a 
second 
time, because it is now the motion that is on the floor. This will be our 
resolution. 
"Resolve that the university faculty senate instruct its president to conduct a 
conversation, including references to the senates established policy regarding a 
rational fiscal policy, with the chancellor, and the president of the student 
assembly regarding a rational tuition plan for SUNY" All in favor of the 
resolution, 
please signify by saying I, oppose nay. [Aye's win] Ok it passes. 

Jim McElwaine: The second item of business for the executive committee involves 
a 
motion you have in front of you, which is entitled formalization of FCCC-UFS 
relations. 
The executive committee is not recommending this motion for the entire faculty 
senate 
consideration, instead what it has done is in executive session has approved a 
set 
of instructions relating to this motion and what we are asking to do is, I will 
read 
you the instructions attached: We approve the proposal with instructions to the 
president of the university faculty senate to present the language to the 
president 
to the faculty council of community colleges for appropriate action, and to 
report 
the results of those discussions to the executive committee prior to 
presentation to 
the entire faculty senate at the winter 2005 plenary.  This requires no vote or 
resolution. It is an executive resolution to its president. Thank you Mr. 
President, 
this concludes the executive committee report. 

[Chair of awards committee report]

Marvin: [greetings] In my report we have designed, we are going to finally be 
getting 
a medallion for distinguished professors. It will be silver, round and roughly 
the 
same size as the medallions we give as chancellor awards. What we are hoping 
will 
happen, is that we'll have some sort of a ceremony in the spring in which all 
the 
distinguished professors will be invited to Albany and be given this medallion. 
We 
think the system will get a lot of bang for the buck when the whole world sees 
that 
we have X number of distinguished professors, and distinguished librarians. We 
passed 
a resolution on Jan 31; it brings up a very interesting issue, which I think is 
really critical for this body. 

President: We have another resolution we'd like to present for your 
consideration

Speaker: The other resolution just sys proposed resolution. I'll read the 
resolve 
portion to you; this follows out of our resolve visit to Albany. Now therefore 
be 
resolved: 
1. That the university faculty senate recommends to campus governance leaders 
that 
each campus should have, within its bylaws, an explicit process for reviewing 
proposals 
for academic reorganization, an explicit process for the review, prior to 
submission 
of proposals to system administration of new academic programs, and an explicit 
process 
for the approval of, and changes to the curriculum. 
2. The university faculty senate recommends to campus governance leaders that 
upon the 
appointment of all new academic administrators, example, Dean, Vice President 
for academic 
affairs, President, that the chair of the governance body communicate with the 
new appointee
[unclear] the appointee of the XN processes of consultation, and reminding the 
appointee 
of all changes to the process must emanate through the normal governance 
mechanism.
3. The university faculty senate recommends to campus governance leaders that as 
a part 
of its periodic review of governance, the local governance body should review 
the 
consultative process, and even where adequate and working well, should use the 
opportunity 
to reacquaint the campus community with the process. 

President: No objections, we must be ready to vote on the resolution as read. 
All 
those in favor please signify by saying I. Oppose nay. The motion Passes.

Ron: So we have some recommendations for amended worded to the draft resolution 
on 
selection of campus presidents. To replace the words" Campuses of academics, who 
are 
finalists" with the wording "Places of employment, of finalists". In the 
resolution 
itself, the following changes: Visitation team, on the 4th line of the 
resolution 
would be removed so we'd have "establish a team of now fewer than 3 members, at 
least
one of them shall be a faculty member to visit" and now we would substitute for 
the following phrase, "The campus of finalists who currently hold collegiate 
positions" the phrase, "the finalists place of employment, for the purpose of 
meeting with superiors, subordinates, lateral administrators” then we would 
have,
"and where relevant, faculty and student leaders" 

President: We have to vote on the amendment first. Please read the amendment.

Ron: New language. "In the academic world it is a common, but not universal 
practice in senior level searches for a small visitation team to be dispatched 
to 
places of employment of ." The resolution would now read "Now be it resolved 
that 
the university faculty senate recommends to the chancellor that he recommend to 
the board of trustees that the 1997 guide to presidential searches be amended. 
To 
provide that the search committee may prior to its final deliberations, and at 
its 
sole discretion, establish a team of not fewer than 3 members, at least one of 
whom 
shall be a faculty member, to visit the finalists place of employment for the 
purpose of meeting with superiors, subordinates, lateral administrators other 
appropriate constituents, and where relevant, faculty leaders and student 
leaders in 
order to evaluate the candidates merit and fitness more fully. Upon their 
return, 
they will report their findings to the full search committee."

President: Now we are voting on that amendment. All those in favor of voting on 
the amendment as read signify by saying I. Oppose nay. Ok the resolution is 
amended. And now, I think you are ready to vote on the amended resolution. All 
those in favor of the amended resolution say I. Oppose nay. Passes without 
descent. 

Father Cremins: [greetings] There’s a story about a chicken and a pig, and when 
the chicken was talking to the pig, he was talking about what a wonderful 
combination 
they had, ham and eggs. And he's going on, the chicken, about how terrific he is 
about helping out here, and the pig says, "hey wait a minute, for you to make 
your 
contribution [laughing] all you gotta do is make an egg, my contribution 
requires 
my life". Trustees are going to come and go, but its the faculty that holds the 
bricks together. It's the faculty that makes the major contributions in your 
lives. 
And so I leave you with my profound respect for what you do, for the tradition. 
Everybody's crowing about the ham, and the university has made terrific strides. 
We're growing in numbers 410,000; we're growing in SAT scores, quality of 
students, 
numbers of contributions from alumni. But the reason is because you have 
established 
the traditions at SUNY. Thank you for everything you've done. 

[Applause]

[Each Senator gives name/discipline to Father Cremins]

President: Lets get back to our agenda; the next report will be from our 
graduate 
and research committee. Gary Kitzman.

Gary: First of all there are no resolutions, which cuts the report drastically. 
There is one thing coming up the faculty orientation guide which has been passed 
by the senate and is going over for last minute changes, in respect to time, is 
being prepared by James Varner, who is the Co-chair last year and John Ho, who 
incidentally are both distinguished professors, and that should be up when the 
website is up. One of the big projects we're going to be working on is nursing 
programs. In my report there is a mention specifically of a 21st century nursing 
challenges, and other information. 

Operations committee, Paul Brodsky, Runi Mukherji: Good morning, there are no 
resolutions. We had a teleconference, and I will quickly go over the items 
discussed 
for those who don't know. The big dig is our investigation of the perceived view 
that 
administrative personnel and costs have gone up, faculty lines have disappeared, 
and 
we've been looking into this starting last year, but the problem was because of 
the 
contract negotiations, we could not pry the data out of system administration. 
We 
now have the data and we are working on analyzing that data. The faculty did a 
profile 
analysis, which we are continuing to work on, is viewing by campus the academic 
ranks and separating them out into gender. This has been done in the past and we 
felt it was time to revisit it. The adjunct faculty which obviously part time is 
involved with academic standards, as well as Mission Review, and essentially 
this 
is going to be looking at, we spent time on the teleconference teasing out who 
is 
in what piles and how we analyze these piles, and we're going to be working on 
that. The energy white paper, in which if you have the summary, SUNY has 
recently, 
completed a review and Maureen Dolan has been working on a white paper, and 
we're 
also working on the state of the library funding, which is moving along. 

Public information Karen Volkman: Just wanted to quickly go over some of the 
information, of the items that we're going to be working on this year, you'll 
notice 
the first one is NY state higher education funding. And we're working with Joe 
and the executive committee on our issues for the NYS public higher education 
public 
conference board, and I think we're in a state of waiting at the moment, waiting 
for after the elections and the legislature to reconvene. So what we've 
recommended 
is of course studying the impact of the impounding of the $50m to the operating 
funds, and I think we can be a little optimistic about what we heard last night 
fr