University Faculty Senate			
Spring Plenary Transcript
Upstate Medical University at Syracuse
April 22-24, 2004



(Transcriber’s note: The first tapes from Friday morning were unsalvageable. 
This transcript begins with Friday’s afternoon session.)

Friday morning session

President Hildreth convened the plenary at 9:10 am.

Welcoming speeches by Host Senator Jeff Freedman, Campus Governance Leader Paula 
Trief and UMU President Gregory Eastwood were delivered.

Reports were received from the Vice President/Secretary and the President.

Jim McElwaine was re-elected Vice President/Secretary.

Garrick Utley, President of the Levin Institute delivered an informational 
address, describing the mission and governance processes in place at the Levin 
Institute.

The meeting was adjourned to sector concerns at 11:15 am.


(Transcriber’s note: The first tapes from Friday morning were unsalvageable. 
This transcript begins with Friday’s afternoon session.)

Friday afternoon session

President Joe Hildreth: I would like to propose that we conduct the elections of 
the Executive Committee and then that the reports from the sectors be written 
and submitted in order to preserve the time that we need.
	I’m going to ask the representatives of the sectors come up and we will 
have the candidates for the five elected positions that will be nominated by 
their respective group. We can have additional nominations from the floor and 
we’ll go from there. If there is only one candidate from membership that is put 
forward and there is no objection from the floor, the Senate may authorize the 
vice-president secretary to cast the unanimous ballot for that candidate. In 
order for that to occur, once the sector representative places the nomination of 
the Executive Committee member on the floor, we’ll need to receive a motion for 
the secretary to cast one ballot. We’ll then vote on that and if we get the 
majority then that person is elected. Everyone understand?
	Could we have the University Centers?

???: The University Centers have caucused and our general approach is to rotate 
through the centers. Professor William Baumann from Buffalo would be our nominee 
and I would ask that this be a unanimous vote.

Joe Hildreth: Are there any nominations from the floor? Seeing none, all those 
in favor of having the secretary case one ballot for the nominee please signify 
by saying, “Aye.”  “Nay”? Congratulations.
	The University Colleges?

???: The University Colleges have one nominee: Achim Koeddermann. We move that 
the secretary cast one ballot.

Joe Hildreth: Do we have any nominations from the floor? I declare nominations 
closed. All those in favor of having the secretary case one ballot for the 
nominee please signify by saying, “Aye.” “Nay”? Congratulations.
	Health Science Center?

???: The Health Science Center has chosen Peter Nickerson as our nominee.

Joe Hildreth: Do we have any nominations from the floor? Motion for the 
secretary to cast one ballot? Moved. Nominations are closed. All those in favor 
of having the secretary case one ballot for the nominee please signify by 
saying, “Aye.” “Nay”? Congratulations.
	Special statutory colleges?

Kathleen Jacquette: I was chosen as the nominated person.

Joe Hildreth: Are there any nominations from the floor? Motion for the secretary 
to cast one ballot? Nominations are now closed. All those in favor of having the 
secretary case one ballot for the nominee please signify by saying, “Aye.” 
“Nay”? Congratulations.
	Colleges of Technology?

???: The Colleges of Technology have nominated Anne Donnelly.

Joe Hildreth: Do we have any nominations from the floor? We need a motion for 
the secretary to cast one ballot? So moved. Nominations are closed. All those in 
favor of having the secretary case one ballot for the nominee please signify by 
saying, “Aye.” “Nay”? Congratulations.
 	Campus governance leaders?

???: Last year we had a somewhat different process because many of the campus 
governance leaders were not here and do not make every meeting. So we are taking 
nominations and there will be an email ballot. We’ll have the convener of the 
campus governance leaders for you within a month.

Joe Hildreth: Are there any objections to that process? Okay. Let’s give our 
newly elected Executive Committee a round of applause.
	Let’s move to the discussion of the assessment issue. I want to start off 
by having Patty Francis come up and walk you through the elements of the 
proposal. I continue to be surprised that groups are not as knowledgeable about 
the key elements of this proposal as I want them to be and, since the proposal 
is quite different from what you looked at in the past, it’s really quite 
critical that you understand what those elements are. Patty has been involved 
with this effort from the beginning. She is currently co-chair of GEAR and is a 
faculty member from Cortland. Her discipline is psychology and her research 
interest is assessment. She currently serves as executive assistant to the 
president at Cortland and she is also an intern fellow for the provost office.
	I am pleased to introduce you to Dr. Patty Francis.

Patty Francis: Thanks a lot for having me and giving me the opportunity to talk 
to you about this proposal. Before I get into specifics, I do want to explain 
and describe some of my experiences to this point with what we are calling the 
SUNY Assessment Initiative.
	I became involved with this effort back in the fall of 1999 when Provost 
Salins formed his advisory task force on the assessment of student learning 
outcomes. It was that group that provided this report which has, in some way, 
become the blueprint for carrying out and implementing the assessment 
initiative. Like any good blueprint, however, it’s proved to be adaptable to 
changing conditions and I think that the proposal that you have is a good 
example of that. After that report was provided a key recommendation was the 
establishment of the GEAR group which had responsibility for overseeing campus-
based general education assessment. I have continued on as co-chair as chair of 
that group.
	For the last couple of years I have been involved ion the various 
discussion groups that have been held regarding what was in this document. This 
task force report was called “University-Wide Assessment,” but we are now 
referring to it as “Strength in Campus-based Assessment.” I’m emphasizing these 
experiences because I think that they put me in a good position to be able to 
talk about this issue as it has unfolded over time, especially in regard to 
changes that have taken place in System Administration’s thinking and approach.
	The SUNY assessment initiative has had three primary objectives:

1. Assessment as improvement. That is using assessment outcomes directly to 
improve teaching and learning. I think that the system of gen ed assessment that 
we have in place at this point is a good example of assessment as improvement.
2. Assessment as accountability and advocacy. It’s important not only to System 
but also to campuses to be able to use assessment information to show that 
learning outcomes are being achieved and also to use that information to 
advocate on behalf of SUNY and individual campuses.
3. Assessment as best practice. The GEAR group is entirely committed to ensuring 
that assessment is going on under its charge and under its responsibility 
represents the best thinking, if you will, in the literature and the research 
that’s been done nation-wide on assessment and its relationship to student 
learning. I think that the emphasis on best practice has been reflected in the 
GEAR group’s guidelines for developing assessment plans and also in the reviews 
that we have provided to individual campuses and their plans.

    It’s an understatement to say that in some instances there have been 
conflicts among these different objectives and we have struggled to reconcile 
all three of these objectives at the same time. I think it’s fair to say that 
the current proposal that you have does this. I make this statement for several 
reasons.
    
1. The proposal that you have before you provides the campuses with great 
flexibility and total autonomy of measures and assessment strategies. The route 
that you choose is totally up to the campus.
2. This approach with three foundational areas of general education 
(mathematics, writing, and critical thinking) that are externally referenced 
make it possible for System Administration and campuses to confidently use this 
information appropriately in aggregate fashion for accountability and advocacy 
purposes.
3. This proposal maintains the critical element of peer review. An oversight for 
general education assessment across SUNY has been provided for the last three 
years by the GEAR group. Also, this peer review would be extended to the 
discipline-based panels that are described in the proposal.

    I know that everyone has had the chance to go over this specific proposal in 
some detail, so I didn’t intend to do that. I will answer any questions that you 
may have. The major faculty concerns that have emerged over the past two years 
are what I would like to focus on now. If you refer to the handout, I am going 
to talk about each of those concerns in turn.

1. Duplication or redundancy of effort, resulting from what was considered a 
system layer of assessment. Under older conceptualizations not only would we 
have the GEAR process in place for campus-based, but there would be another 
process to guide university-wide. Now, all general education assessment is 
folded into the GEAR group process. The proposal that you have shows you the 
incorporation of all of these ideas into the GEAR group guidelines.
2. The cost to campuses. System administration has agreed to pay for the 
administration of any nationally norm measures for up to twenty percent of the 
target student population, which we think would represent an appropriate 
percentage of retesting and sampling purposes.
3. Value-added assessment. Now it is an option for campuses instead of being 
required.
4. Campuses would be forced to use specific measures that they didn’t 
necessarily want to use or weren’t appropriate to their curriculum and 
curriculum programs. In the proposal before you, campuses have a range of 
choices from a variety of assessment measures and strategies ranging from the 
nationally norm measures to locally developed measures that either correlate 
with these externally referenced test or which are basically approved by the 
discipline-based panels that will be formed as a subset of the GEAR group.
5. A related concern is was that there would be inappropriate comparisons made 
among campuses with respect to assessment data. I think that it’s fair to say 
that there will be so many different kinds of approaches used that it will be 
literally impossible to make comparisons because they’re all probably going to 
be using different measures and different combinations of measures.
6. Inappropriate use of reporting assessment results. In order to affirm our 
commitments to that not happening, we’ve emphasized an adherence to the specific 
principles that would safeguard against these problems and also put into the 
proposal the violation of this would mean that faculty would no longer feel 
obliged to take part in the assessment effort.

    As someone who has watched this process unfold for four years from a very 
close vantage point, I strongly believe that this proposal represents a real 
opportunity to develop the SUNY assessment initiative in a way and through a 
process that we can all be proud of. I also agreed with Joe when he said that if 
we could come out with an approach that we could reach consensus on that this 
would definitely be a victory for shared governance.

Joe Hildreth: I would like to have Kimberly present what the Faculty Council did 
and why. I believe you have the dot in the resolution that they put forward.

Kimberly Riser: At this session Joe asked me to highlight the Faculty Council 
position on university-wide assessment. We all know that it has been renamed 
strengthened campus-based assessment.
        It has really been a difficult year for us in higher education. Our 
enrollments are swelling, our budgets are shrinking, and we have been challenged 
to our core with the passing of the resolution by the Board of Trustees on June 
17th.
        We’ve been talking with each other for almost a year now, trying to find 
common ground .With the passage of the Faculty Council resolution on April 3rd I 
believe that we did that. I also believe that we would not be where we are today 
if we did not unite. The students, the faculty, the presidents, the chief 
academic officers and take the initial courageous stand that we did in the fall.
    I have provided two documents. The first is an updated university-wide 
assessment chronologically that was outside. I presented this to you for the 
first time in January. Several things have happened since then. The other 
document is the faculty council resolution. Please be assured that it was 
adopted after a very lengthy debate. It accepts campus-based assessment with 
five specified modifications. The focus of our discussions changed considerably 
over the three-day course of our meeting. Ultimately, the community college 
faculty realized that either we accept the proposal, accept the proposal with 
modifications, or we check the proposal with the knowledge that if we rejected 
the proposal, we could be dealing with implementation of the Board of Trustees’ 
June 17th resolution or something as equally or more problematic.
    In the fall the community college faculty were concerned about many things, 
but the two most prominent were the potential misuse of assessment data and 
bizarre campus comparisons and also funding for assessment. Because of the 
flexibility in the new proposal, out concerns about campus comparisons have 
lessened. If you take out the faculty council resolution, I would like to 
briefly highlight our suggested modifications.
    We had some concerns about the funding that had recently been expressed. 
System administration has committed to paying the costs of the purchase and 
administration of the nationally normed measures and our resolution also asks 
System to pick of the cost of implementation. That was a major concern of ours 
as well as any locally developed measures. We also asked that the governance 
bodies and GEAR be involved in selecting the faculty that serve on the 
discipline-based peer review and that there are equal numbers of faculty from 
the community colleges and state operated.
    We asked that that output of the GEAR process be sent back to the campuses 
for comment because it was felt that we otherwise would be giving GEAR a blank 
check agreeing to standards and rubrics we would have yet to see. Perhaps the 
proposal could be submitted to appropriate departments on all campuses for their 
review and suggestions before finalized. If time permits, perhaps GEAR could 
even work interactively with departments. The value of this modification is that 
it removes any concerns about the GEAR panel not being truly representative of 
the faculty and mathematics written communication.
    The community college faculty believes that the means of assessing critical 
thinking is less well defined than it is for assessing math or writing. Given 
that the current GEAR process has the campuses developing standards and rubrics 
for critical thinking at this time, we would like to wait until they are 
compiled so that the GEAR discipline-based peer panels can use them as a 
resource.

Joe Hildreth: I would now like to have Stephanie Gross give an explanation of 
the students’ action on this.

Stephanie Gross: It was a very hard decision to vote against it but it was the 
right thing to do. I still feel proud to have done that. As we proceeded through 
this, not supporting the MOU as well as continuing to try to find what the 
problems were and how we could come to something that we agreed on. What really 
happened with this task force was to create a checklist of what concerns the 
bodies stated and to make sure that we covered that to have this proposal that I 
think is extremely strong. I do hope that you support it. If you don’t, please 
come up with modifications, if you have any, or something in the constructive, 
positive, productive way so that we have something to go back to the Chancellor 
and the Board with. I would never dare speak on behalf on the Board but working 
with them I can tell you that they are looking forward to having something 
positive to come out of these discussions… (tape ends)

Dick Collier: …I hope that whatever we wind up voting on clears up the 
confusions. Although my campus did vote unanimously in rejecting the proposal, I 
think the wall of the changes proposed by the FCCC would have made it a bit more 
palatable.
        Some of the remaining concerns that Albany had…one is   the issues of 
the mathematics and the fact that there are so many different standards. We’re 
doing a waiver based on a high school examination that covers stats, 
probability, and things like that. Whatever the norming is, is a problem.
	Functional problem…here I depend on people who could have passed this 
exam. According to my campus, the complete poison pill in the proposal is that 
we have to do an achievement thing. If we have a locally developed instrument it 
has to be demonstrated and have current validity with nationally normed 
measures. That, we would consider, not strengthen campus-based but considerably 
weaken campus-based assessment for writing and critical thinking. Some people 
say that that doesn’t mean we have to norm it against national exams or some 
standard but the people on my campus who have spent years working with 
assessment we do, and if that’s the way it is, we can’t support it.

Joe Hildreth: We’re going to distribute this resolution that was developed by 
the Executive Committee. That’s a motion. We’re now going to continue this 
discussion, but it will be a formal discussion on the motion. We also have some 
concerns that we need to figure out a way to address.
	One way might be to do a similar format to the Faculty Council. My concern 
in terms of running the meeting is that we do this in such a way that we don’t 
get lost in the detail. One suggestion that has been passed along to me is for 
me to walk you through the summary so that we can try to structure the comments 
that we are making in a more formal fashion. If you then feel that we need to do 
something in order to enable this to pass, we can work on that.
	Comments on the background?

Pete Knuepfer (Binghamton): Probably, at the outset, the most fundamental 
question and stumbling block for many faculty, including my campus, is that the 
only reason that has been set forward and suggested that we need to move beyond 
what we’re doing right now in campus-based assessment is to provide assessment 
as accountability. The difficulty is that most of us don’t find that that is a 
particularly reasonable or legitimate reason to assess. We are interested in 
assessment to improve education and I know that a number of folks have made 
comments through email that gets at this issue. There really hasn’t been any 
explanation or justification of providing accountability other than a vague 
suggestion that there are stakeholders that are interested in having some 
measures of accountability.
	I’m saying this, in part, because I am coming from a campus where that is 
a major stumbling block in even wanting to consider this proposal. I will then 
put on my personal hat in that there is a political reality out there that we 
unfortunately do have to be aware of. This is that accountability is a popular 
political movement and that it is one of these things where I can use a lot of 
analogies…the train has already left the station. The proposals that we have on 
the table in the background here provide us with a mechanism or opportunity to 
slow the train down or, at least, steer it in a particular direction. On the 
pragmatic side, that is perhaps a reason to support the basic final proposal 
that we’ve got here. You can see that I am personally have a hard time working 
through these two sides of the issue but I thought it was important to recognize 
and to get on the record that there is considerable opposition to the assumption 
that assessment as accountability is an appropriate mechanism or way to go.

Joe Hildreth: Thank you, Pete. I wanted to make clear that the motion that we 
have just distributed is not on the floor. This is a formal discussion of that 
motion.

(Extensive discussion and dispute over wording in the document)
 
Marvin Goodman (Buffalo): We should agree to some kind of a ground rule that 
says that to go back through this, word by word, where it is word smithy rather 
than clarification, there need some emendations for clarification to make sure 
that we know exactly what it is. To go back through and get the most felicitous 
phrase that we can possibly find (which we’re very good at, except that we would 
be here until tomorrow night), I think would be very difficult to do.
	The second piece is to try to put it to this language, which is going to 
concretize every single iota of it, we’ve really arrived at this as kind of a 
good faith effort. It’s taken a long, long time. What we have now is a document 
so different from a high-stakes single exam that was suggested to us four or 
five years ago at one of these plenary meetings. The difference is almost 
infinite from where we started and where we are.

Norman Goodman: I think that Marvin is absolutely correct. What we have now is 
the nature of the legislative debate, which will frame what we eventually do, 
without having to put everything in the exact same words. The exact wording here 
is less important than the spirit of what is going on.

(More discussion on the wording and language is discouraged and the discussion 
continues)

Runi Mukherji: We all know that while you can the supposedly normed test banks, 
it is very difficult to construct your own that match those criteria. Coming up 
with our own garden variety of tests that can be shown to have current validity 
with or going through those processes and then getting them approved by GEAR is 
a lengthy, time consuming process for faculty. The only financial reassurance 
we’re looking for is in terms of administering nationally normed tests. We are 
constantly in the position of fulfilling unfunded mandates and this is yet 
another layer. There is assurance that System will fund the money for twenty 
percent of the sample if it is a nationally normed test. If this is their way of 
encouraging nationally normed tests, this is the way to do it. The other way of 
trying to come up with a good test that has integrity that you develop yourself 
requires incredible time and effort on the part of the faculty.
Joe Hildreth: I’m going to let Don address that.

Don: Modification two of the Faculty Council endorsement of this makes that very 
point if we accept that.

Runi Mukherji: If we accept that does that go along with the GEAR guidelines?
	
Donald Stevens: It’s not really a GEAR issue, it’s a System Administration 
issue. That is the kind of thing that is likely to go in a Board policy. It 
would likely go in a letter from Chancellor King to Joe Hildreth and Kimberly 
Riser. I’m telling you that we accept that helpful modification from the Faculty 
Council. That’s a nice addition to this.

Joe Hildreth: We need to move along and get through this document. I would like 
to get to the point where we can have a vote.
	Mike?

Mike Andolina (Empire State College): This addresses the resolution in a non-
substantive way. The second line really doesn’t capture all of the discussion 
that we have had. This body has voted to continue this dialogue and we have. We 
have discussed it for a number of years and I think that we should acknowledge 
that. I would like to make a friendly amendment.

Joe Hildreth: I’m advised that we can do that after we address the resolved 
section.
	Achim?

Achim Koeddermann (Oneonta): The question here is trust. Regarding the 
Chancellor, a lot of what we have on the table is not of his making, his doing, 
or his will. There is a general trust of the faculty for the Chancellor. We 
should say something positive about this institution.
	I am not saying conspiracy theory here. However, you must remember that we 
have rules of the game. In this case they had something to do with the outcome. 
The secretary of our body, our duly elected representative, was not part of that 
committee. He himself didn’t know that he was not a part of that committee. Very 
much to my surprise, I come to a committee which debates this when he is not 
present. This means that the communication is not in the hands of our secretary, 
which is his charge. Even better, when I was asked to run for vice-president for 
this assembly I asked him if he wanted to run again. He said that he couldn’t 
because the rules of the game prevent you from doing that.
	The question is trust in rules of the game. It can be addressed with an 
advancement of knowledge. Let’s go to the dissemination of the debate. It had to 
be focused, it happened in two meetings, and the meeting shifted the 
responsibility to the GEAR group. A couple of essential questions for me still 
have not been answered. How do we motivate our students to take those exams if 
they don’t count? How do we get them the amount of reason they need in order to 
get them to the table? What will assessment be worth? This assessment document 
has made us aware that we have certain things that we really care about. Trust 
is one of them and it would bad to sacrifice that. I would like something that 
would make my and every other class better. I’m still not convinced that this 
does.

Patty: There’s no reason that these measures won’t yield very useful information 
for the individual campuses. You have to keep in mind that the three measures 
that have been delineated or specified in this proposal and areas that campuses 
have already built into their G.E. assessment plans anyway. Certainly this is 
information that will be valuable to individual campuses.
	I agree with you about student motivation if campuses are going to utilize 
standalone testing that doesn’t take place in the context of a course. For those 
of you that have been involved with campus-based G.E. assessment probably at 
least 95% of all the measures that are being administered through that are 
course embedded. They are taking place in the context of the course.
	With regard to what will happen if campuses decide to use a different kind 
of approach, I do agree with you that some guidelines will have to be developed 
and I think that the GEAR group will be very instrumental in the development of 
them with recommendations. I was very reassured by Stephanie’s statement and I 
think that it was at our second meeting that the student assembly will play a 
very active role in informing students about this assessment effort and in 
telling the students how important it is that they do take part in the 
assessments and do the best they can. I don’t know if Stephanie wants to add 
anything to that...

(Stephanie speaks away from the microphone.)
	
Patty: I want to go back to a point that I probably didn’t emphasize enough. 
There are methodologies out there that other colleges have used to encourage 
participation and maximal effort by students and the GEAR group would use those 
as resources.

Joe Hildreth: Just one more point and then we are going to have to move along. 
On the composition of the committee… Our people were selected by the sectors, 
the two people that were appointed that had been on this in the past were 
selected by the Executive Committee, and the committee changed from a Faculty 
Senate committee into a system-wide committee with equal representation.
	Ken?

Ken O’Brien (Brockport): I support this motion with some genuine reluctance and 
some real questions. Those of you who were at the meeting last spring when I 
suddenly became convener of the CGLs know that my default position on assessment 
was not a welcoming one, particularly anything that smacked of numbers across 
the system that would yield comparative results. It didn’t seem to me that that 
was going to be useful or possible.
	We’ve come a long way since then. I have been at each and every one of the 
meetings that have dealt with this issue, one way or another, for the last year. 
I didn’t want to, I’m not particularly happy about it, but I have learned a good 
deal.
	One of the things that I have learned is that it is possible for the 
system to work in terms of shared governance. It is possible for people to come 
together from dispirit parts of the university, from different kinds of 
colleges, from different levels of the system and meet…

(end of tape)

…there is something that is very practical that you need to understand. There is 
a system policy on system-wide assessment. There is, in fact, a Board of 
Trustees policy on system-wide assessment. We are not talking about what if, in 
some kind of magical way, if we turn this down it will just go away. It will 
not. The June 17th policy is there and it will be implemented if we do not find 
some way with modification and reassurances to come to terms at this meeting 
with this proposal. That is the threat.
	Is there anything in it on the upside for us? Those of us for whom the A-
word is not necessarily welcome. I think there is. What this allows us to do on 
our campuses is to have the campus conversations about how we would best asses 
the building blocks of G.E. across many different sections, many different 
levels of student preparation, and many different outcomes. In other words, it 
would focus our own discussions on how we can begin to evaluate the degree to 
which we have succeeded in fostering student learning. It will not be on our 
pyrotechnics in a classroom but on the extent to which we have been able to 
define with clarity and to lead students to achieve common skill levels and 
understanding behind them in three key areas. That’s all the proposal really 
does. For that reason, I support it.

Joe Hildreth: Thank you, Ken. Pete?

Pete Knuepfer: Two comments. One of the concerns that many people have about the 
proposal is that we are handing this over to GEAR and then we will be seeing 
proposal later during this meeting to clarify GEAR membership and longevity on 
GEAR. It’s lurking in the background and those of us on the Executive Committee 
know it and other people don’t.
	To the resolution itself… I would like to propose the following amendment. 
I’ll hand it over to the President as soon as I finish reading it.

(Reads part of resolved clause and then the amendment)

	The purpose for that amendment would be to explicitly agree to the 
modifications and incorporate them, without putting in all the wording, into 
this resolution. I think that those modifications strengthen the position and 
the process as well as providing a uniform position from the two faculty 
governance bodies.

Joe Hildreth: (Reads the amendment) I think we’re ready for a vote on the 
amendment. Do you understand it as read? It’s to add the five modifications on 
the FCCC resolution that’s in your packets. All in favor, signify by saying 
“aye”. Those opposed, “nay”. It’s amended.
	Now back to the discussion on the now amended resolution.

Bob Rogers: This all boils down to how much control the campuses have over this. 
IT gets to the point where I’m not quite sure what the answer is to that. To 
illustrate it, I would like to ask a question of anyone on the GEAR group 
because it sounds like that’s going to be the group that oversees this. Since 
there are only three points that are being tested, one of which is math, this 
accounts for 33% of this entire endeavor.
	In mathematics the campuses can \choose to go beyond the SUNY minimum 
which is to get a “B” on the high school Course III regents. Suppose that the 
campus, no matter what they do on their own campus, say that since the SUNY is 
that that all of those questions that are in those high school level course are 
addressed in the SAT. Could we use their entrance score on the SAT in math as 
the assessment and not do anything beyond that?

Tom: No, you can’t, because the assessment is of the courses that you have 
approved for your G.E. plan that you do have students take. The students that 
don’t take it because they are exempted due to a Regents test, for example, are 
not students that would fall into the pool that you would assess.
	The math issue is complex. We all know that we were dealt a strange set of 
outcomes in math when arithmetic was put in there. We need to go back and look 
at the math outcomes. That is a different issue from the assessment proposal 
here itself which is a plan for the structural process on assessment. The 
specifics for math for which many mathematicians across the system have concern 
is not an unrelated issue but it will be affected by this but it’s not really an 
issue that can be dealt with successfully in a description of a process. The 
assessment for math that is in any plan does not include the students that were 
exempted. But the proposal that we are looking at today is for a process that is 
dealing with assessment, not with the math problem.

Joe Hildreth: Let’s go to the last speakers. 

???: This may complicate matters but I move to do it because I think it’s 
essential. In the three-page version of the bases for assessment…on page two in 
the middle of the page there are two paragraphs with roman numerals. If you are 
looking at another version of it this is under the heading of “Proposed 
Revisions to the GEAR Guidelines”… I am in the last sentence of those.
	I move that the sentence reading, “Campuses choosing to use their own 
standards and rubrics must demonstrate to GEAR that their standards and rubrics 
are essentially equivalent to those developed by the discipline-based panel” be 
changed to, “Campuses choosing to use their own standards and rubrics must 
provide evidence to GEAR establishing that their standards and rubrics are at 
least equivalent to those developed by the discipline-based panels.” If there is 
a second, I would be pleased to explain that and speak to it.

Joe Hildreth: There is a second.

???: Demonstrate, for those of us who spend a little time teaching logic, is an 
extraordinarily strong term. One of my problems in much of the defense of this 
that I have heard previously is that as long as that word is in there, the only 
way that I can see that this is done or can be done is by testing of the 
students involved using both the national and local tests, etc.
	That is why I believe that if what has been said is accurate, we would be 
much better off to phrase it in terms of evidence establishing the change of the 
alternative rubrics, etc., provided to GEAR. They need to be equivalent or 
better; not just “essentially equivalent.” 

(Joe Hildreth reads the current and proposed amendment)

Norman Goodman: I oppose the amendment because using the phrase “provide 
evidence” is more restricting than demonstrate a variety of different ways. 
Providing evidence will require the testing that Bill wants to avoid. The 
wording change makes it what he doesn’t want rather than what he does. 
“Demonstrate” gives us flexibility.

Ron Sarner (Institute of Technology): If I were to agree with the concerns of 
the speaker, the way that I would chose to handle it is in the resolution to 
incorporate whatever other concerns the body has about the document…not to 
attempt to wordsmith and rework the document itself. Other groups have already 
done that. I think it is appropriate to (fuzzy) the amendment and list any other 
concerns that the body has at the end as support of the document subject to the 
concerns and numerated below.

Dick Collier (Albany): I speak in favor of the amendment. That certainly removes 
the most important of my campus to the existing document. I assume that this 
will be a change in the document itself.

???: I want to respond to the earlier comment and point out that this is why I 
raised the question when this discussion began. What we are adopting is not that 
apparently very short resolution provided by the Executive Committee. We are 
adopting this document, front to back, all of the wording. If you don’t think 
the “demonstrate” is the right word, and I don’t, you don’t want it in the 
document that we adopt.

Joe Hildreth: Shall we vote on the proposed amendment. I’ll try to read it to 
you again. (reads the amended section)
	All those in favor of the proposed amendment, please signify by saying, 
“Aye.” Opposed, “Nay.” Let’s have a show of hands. It’s defeated. I’m told that 
I don’t have to call for abstentions on this; I’m sorry.
	Okay, we’re back to discussing this.

Luther Peterson (Oswego): I have one question to Dr. Francis. When we talk about 
course-embedded, does that mean we talk about twenty percent? This must be a 
simple question, but what I assume is that you go through your examinations and 
then you randomly pick out on out of every five?

Patty Francis: Well t his is something that the GEAR group is going to have to 
struggle with to try to figure out an adequate methodology. But the campuses 
choosing to go with the twenty percent…some details are going to have to be 
worked out and I think that the GEAR group will probably put a lot of time into 
it…but, for example, we might be able to propose an alternative where twenty 
percent of the students taking the course at that particular time might be 
included in the sample. It’s just an idea.
	Obviously, if we were to stick to that twenty percent overall as it’s 
stated, course-embedded probably wouldn’t work. It would have to be a stand-
alone.

Maureen: I just want to follow up on the previous comments about the mathematics 
assessment. I don’t want to repeat what was said earlier.
	The campus general education committee at the Old Westbury campus does has 
serious concerns I share about the proposal. Even with all the flexibility, it 
could be somewhat constraining on innovation and leadership which SUNY faculty 
might be providing, especially through sponsored research. Something that came 
to mind was a five-year program that Old Westbury participated in and which was 
led by Stony Brook. The intent was no less than systemic reform of undergraduate 
instruction. This was to provide leadership at the national level, in particular 
interdisciplinary applications of mathematics and the infusion of math across 
the disciplines. As such, Old Westbury developed a general education course 
which was proved by SUNY in quantitative reasoning and decision making.
	As part of this program, the course itself was team-taught. It was 
mathematics, but it also involved the philosophy and social science professor. 
Part of the exercise in terms of the charge from NSF was to develop assessment 
measures. There were and are no nationally normed assessment measures for such 
an innovative and important aspect of general education mathematics, which is to 
focus not only on basic skills, but to motivate students to see how math is part 
of their everyday decision-making and how it’s infused into their majors across 
the disciplines. How might a panel composed of experts in SUNY from other areas 
of mathematics weigh in on how a campus could develop assessment measures for 
something that has not been done before?

Don: It sounds like a terrific program and the emphasis on quantitative 
reasoning is probably more along the lines of where we’d love to go in terms of 
math outcomes rather than grounded as we are. I’m interested in learning more 
about what you are doing.
	The proposal here is a structure for developing assessment. It is, in a 
sense, removed from the problem that you’re telling us about, which is very 
real. The best guarantee of that is to make sure that some of our most informed 
and progressive minds in mathematics as the discipline panel that would advise 
GEAR on that. I think you’d be very helpful to be a part of the process of 
giving us some understanding about whom might be on that panel and why.
	The point that the Faculty Council raised, which is a perfect illustration 
of it, is to make sure that that discipline panel doesn’t operate in a vacuum. 
If they don’t and they are in a dialogue with the campuses, I think you could be 
very confident that the outcome would be both enlightened and meet all of the 
expectations that we would have.
	My gut instinct is that the problems that we face in math and this process 
here may help us get to a better place in math general education and try to 
develop a set of outcomes more appropriate to college education.

Joe Hildreth: We’re on the clock and I promised that we would go back to that 
proposed amendment to the whereas that Mike had. All those in favor signify by 
saying, “Aye.” Opposed, nay?
	And now to the final whereas…are we ready to go? Ed, read this, please? 
(Ed reads the revised statement.) All those in favor of supporting the proposed 
amendment, signify by saying, “Aye.” Opposed, nay? It passes.
	Are we ready to vote? All those in favor of the amended resolution on 
strengthened campus-based assessment, please signify by saying, “Aye.” Opposed, 
nay? It passes. Thank you very much for the discussion.
	We’re going to take a quick break and then we’ll have the panel on 
plagiarism.

…has perhaps as many as four hundred majors. She has been an acting member in 
terms of our committees and is currently an acting member of the undergraduate 
committee. She’s organized this and it’s a pleasure to introduce Janet to you.

Janet Nepkie: This is a hot topic for all of us in higher education. The 
background to this panel is that about a year ago I was very concerned for 
students at Oneonta who were being obliged to turn their work in electronically 
to software called TurnItIn.com, which many of you may be used to. What happens 
is that the student submits his or her paper and two days later TurnItIn.com 
turns it in to the teacher with a plagiarism report. I was concerned because it 
seemed to be blatant copyright infringement which did not rise to the level of 
the fair use exception. I also thought that it was a breach of privacy for our 
students. I have since heard other points of view which also make sense to me. I 
brought it to the Exec Board and that group went bananas because plagiarism is 
such a hot topic. I was immediately instructed to put together a panel so I did.
        This problem has grown exponentially as the facility of technology has 
enabled copying to happen. The problem cuts across all populations in higher 
education. It has to do with faculty, staff, and students. But today we are 
focusing on the question students, ethics, and plagiarism. If you would like to 
see us explore the broader issues, including staff and faculty, I strenuously 
urge you to fill out the evaluation form which is in your packet and let us know 
what you would like us to discuss if you would like to have a future symposium 
on a broader level.
        Is plagiarism caused by the simplicity of doing so through new 
technology? Is it caused by faculty who don’t know how to give good clear 
directions about what constitutes plagiarism? Is it caused by the fact that we 
can cut and paste much more easily now with the Internet? Or are our students 
simply not honest anymore?
	We have experts here with us today and I want you to hear them. I have 
with us today Dr. Don McCabe¸ professor of management and global business from 
Rutgers University and a national expert on plagiarism, not only in this 
country, but throughout the world; Thomas Mackey, an assistant professor at the 
School of Information Science University in Albany; Stephanie Gross, President 
of the SUNY Student Assembly and a member of the Board of Trustees, well-known 
and respected by all of you; and Chip Morris, Office of Student Conduct and 
Community Standards from SUNY Potsdam, who is the head of a new organization of 
Campus Judicial Officers. I’m proud and pleased to introduce our speakers to 
you.

Dr. McCabe: I’ve had the opportunity over that last twelve of thirteen years to 
survey almost 100,000 students now on almost one hundred different campuses 
primarily in the U.S. and Canada as well as in a few other countries. I should 
tell you up front that my bias is promoting academic integrity rather than 
punishing academic dishonesty. Certainly, we could reduce cheating by being more 
vigilant and stronger punishments more frequently applied and I have no problem 
with strong punishment when it’s deserved, but I think that a part of what we 
are trying to do here is to engage in some form of character education and teach 
students some lessons in responsibility and integrity that they can take away 
with them when they leave campus.
	I’m going to try to give you a more global picture than my colleagues will 
probably give you. I think they’ll focus more on the SUNY picture. In my reduced 
agenda I’ll try to give you a brief overview of my most recent research by 
focusing on just the last year or two. I will try to identify what I, as well as 
the students and faculty I’ve surveyed, perceive to be some of the major issues.
	The survey I did last year in the U.S. and Canada focused on thirty-four 
different schools and about 35,000 students. In the Canadian environment we did 
undergrad and grad students, faculty, teaching assistants and first-year 
students. We asked the last group about their experience in high school and how 
they thought college might differ. It’s clear that this problem is starting 
sooner than college. The question is what are some of the attitudes that 
students might be arriving with at our campuses and what some good strategies 
might be to address that. In the U.S. we did only the students, faculty, and 
TAs. There were only about seven hundred TAs in Canada and the U.S., so I’m not 
going to speak to those.
	We’re basically asking students to be honest about their dishonesty which 
raises some questions. I will tell you that the results are very consistent, 
they make sense, and when you compare when student admit they’ve done themselves 
to what they say goes on at their campus in general their results hold together. 
I would not stand here and tell you that the percentages of the students that 
admit they’ve cheated are truly representative, but the relevant comparisons 
between different types of campuses, majors, and students are very valid.
	I’ve switched over the last couple years of surveying to web-based 
surveys. That’s raised some new issues particularly with regard to self-report 
data…
	
…it might not be necessarily completely representative, but I can assure you 
they represent the thoughts of many students and that is why I selected them. 
        Some of the reasons they cheat: 
1. They don’t have enough time to do the work.
2. The course load is too heavy and you’ve got to get some assistance.
3. The pressure to do well (parents almost encourage them to cheat sometimes.)
4. The course is required by the university and the student doesn’t want to take 
and it doesn’t know why they have to take it.
5. Motivation related to faculty…some don’t proctor their exams very well…a lot 
of them give you meaningless assignments that have no learning value…professors 
with inadequate teaching skills… However, student do say that when the professor 
is putting forth 150% effort and the professor is holding up their end of the 
bargain, students are less likely to cheat due to respect for their professor.

Over 80% of the students cheated, especially in first-year required science 
courses. 

6. Many students say that they feel almost left behind if they don’t cheat. They 
say they don’t want to be cheating and if you can just get the other people to 
stop they will fall into line…but as long as the institution and the faculty are 
letting these students cheat, they feel as though they have no choice and must 
cheat to keep up.
7. Competition increases for the jobs and for the spots in the top graduate 
schools…cheating is perpetuated by this.

    From my faculty surveys I want to highlight one my pet peeves here. One of 
the safeguards that faculty use to reduce the level of cheating or encourage 
higher levels of academic integrity is highlighting and putting this information 
in your syllabus. These are such simple things to do. Students need to know that 
you care about this issue, otherwise they’re not. They may not even if you do, 
but I think there’s a minimum level of care that may change the equation for 
them.
    I want to cover the issue that I already touched on that even faculty 
acknowledge that they incur cheating on occasion. Students make that accusation, 
but faculty admit that themselves. A primary reason is a lack of adequate proof 
but also lack of support from schools.
    	These are faculty comments, not students’ comments. The role that the 
faculty should play on the proactive side is leading by example. If you behave 
ethically toward your students, the students are likely to reciprocate. We 
should discuss this topic openly with the students to understand and acknowledge 
the dilemmas that they have. We have to talk about what it means to cheat. A lot 
of students don’t understand that information on the Internet is not public 
information and that you do have to cite it. Someone needs to help them 
understand that that is not the case.
    	On the defensive side, faculty who want to monitor their exams, set and 
enforce more rules, and need to vary assignments and exams don’t have problems 
with any of these. I think that’s why the schools that have honor codes are so 
effective. Clearly, there are some schools that have something called a single 
sanction penalty, where if you are found responsible for cheating you are 
dismissed from the institution. Obviously, there is some negative reinforcement 
there that reduces the likelihood of cheating, but at most other honor school 
codes it does appear that the more positive approach is having an impact.
	I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you may have later on.

Thomas Mackey (University of Albany): I’d like to shift the focus now to looking 
at this from the classroom perspective. The name of my presentation was 
originally, “Preventing plagiarism through information literacy”. Someone 
pointed out, though, that we aren’t preventing… I guess she was right. Internet 
cheating has become very common; people just copy and paste from the Web. I 
haven’t seen a student using a library book to plagiarize in about three years, 
so I think that this is about easy access to the Web and how we conceptualize 
this resource.
	What I want to talk about is one of my courses. It’s a large lecture class 
and it’s about eighty to one hundred twenty students per semester. This is a 
conceptual model for the class and it’s something that I draw the first day on 
the blackboard and try to make all of these different connections. It shows the 
four main components of the class, but also how I try to make central linkages 
between the student areas.
	First of all, there is a research and writing component. I don’t think 
that we can make any assumptions about the skills that a student has coming into 
our class whether it is an intermission literacy course or not. This is an upper 
level discipline-specific literacy course so I have a certain obligation to 
teach research methods. However, I don’t think that the information should be 
limited to literacy courses. It should be across the board.
	Web design…I think it’s very important to have students become Web 
developers to, in part, demystify this process of what the Web is and how easy 
it is to make documents for the Web and what it is to be original in that 
particular space. Collaboration is key along with ethical collaboration. The 
fact students are working in a Web-based environment and hypertext theory and 
Web theory is really all about collaboration. That’s one of the reasons that we 
talked about that. It’s very real world for students to gain skills in working 
with other people and to be able to work ethically and responsibly in teams.
 	This is an upper level information science course and I have all of these 
great topics ideas to work with, talking about copyright, intellectual property, 
access and Internet security… I use a book that discusses our rights in a 
digital environment and working with and communicating ideas. The center of this 
conceptual map is ideas. I tell my students on the first day of class that this 
is about their development of ideas. I also want them to think about how ideas 
originate and how to ethically refer to another idea through citations, etc. 
What is the public domain and how do we work with ideas in them?
	I really try to focus on research literacy and Web literacy. That is 
essential and we look at the information literacy literature…there is a lot of 
debate over whether we are teaching technology skills or information/research 
skills. I don’t think you can avoid the Internet or technology in this era, 
especially when our students are so easily going to the Web.
	In this model I see two pillars. The first pillar is research literacy. I 
encourage you to think visually because the Internet is such a visual 
environment. I explain to my students what the editorial process is all about 
and actually have your students be peer reviewers for other students in the 
class. The other pillar is the web literacy component so that students are 
learning HTML, cascading style sheets, etc., and developing digital images. I 
think that they gain a better understanding about what virtual space is and what 
virtuality is by actually constructing these images through something like 
Photoshop. Also through working with Web teams and thinking about how ideas 
change in dialogue with someone else, negotiating, exchanging ideas and seeing 
visually how that has an impact on what it is that they create.
	What I am trying to think about with research literacy is for them to 
create a formal research paper and they are really authors of that paper. I 
don’t have them just make silly pages about their hobbies; they are making 
research-oriented websites. I want them to think about the Web as an idiom for 
communication and as a meaningful space where they are not just being sold a 
product. Everything about the Web is always selling you something, but 
remembering the Web and the hypertext as a place for meaningful content is what 
I want them to be thinking about.
	Those research skills have a direct impact on the Web literacy and 
thinking this way has a direct effect as well on the papers and ideas that they 
are developing, and even how they are documenting Web sources. I am trying to 
help them demystify this process of what the Web is. It’s not this absolute 
authority that has all of the answers. Our students are original thinkers and I 
think that we sometimes have to remind them of that.
	Research literacy is about more complex searches by going beyond Yahoo! 
and Google. Getting them to think about the difference between the kinds of 
sources that they run into…popular sources versus scholarly versus trade and 
getting them to analyze and create these site and scholarly journal articles. 
I’m getting them to question the validity and reliability of these sources and 
having them participate in some sort of editorial review process. This, by the 
way, is a great opportunity to collaborate with librarians in a meaningful way.
	Thinking in terms of a higher level model of information literacy…for me, 
one challenge is trying to get them to think about what a scholarly journal 
article is for us. Also, changing your assignments every semester is very 
important. Making a lot of Web-based resources available for them is important. 
This gets them to use the Web in a productive way and not just copying it. This 
conversation about plagiarism isn’t just scolding them on the first day and 
telling them not to do it. It’s fully integrated in everything that they are 
doing.
	The number one thing I see in terms of plagiarism is copying it from the 
Web. Sometimes they will copy from other students on their team or they will 
have inappropriate collaboration where they are working together and they 
present the same exact code. What we are seeing is the content being 
appropriated in an appropriate way.
	Please feel free to contact me with any questions through email or after.

Stephanie Gross: I often wonder where we are as a people, culture, and nation in 
regard to our integrity and values. Being able to share with you is a 
reaffirmation of how fortunate we are. We have been able to develop a way of 
life that puts so much emphasis on education and learning. Our emphasis seems to 
focus more on the acquisition of information rather than the perpetuation of the 
ideas and values that are the source of our greatness.
        Our entire culture is, in my mind, on the brink of having to make some 
important decisions as to where we are going. Are we so caught up in handing 
down information, facts and ideas that we are willing to forego the values that 
have helped make us the greatest nation and culture in the world? Is increasing 
the speed of my new Dell laptop where the greatest minds should be focusing 
their efforts? Is the creation of Smart Moms, cruise missiles and Black Hawk 
helicopters where our engineers should spend their hours? I wonder where we are 
as a culture when our President lies under oath to Congress about extramarital 
affairs, where a governor of a predominant state accepts bribes and gifts 
contrary to his oath and goes on to his fellow politicians, the press and his 
constituents, and where a CEO of a multimillion dollar corporation lies, cheats, 
and steals and thousands of his employees are out in the cold without retirement 
money.
        I’m sure that each and every one of you has asked the same questions. My 
thoughts and concerns are not original but I want to show you that our SUNY 
students all around the state share our concerns about the topic today. Not all 
of us steal from the information sources without giving credit to the source. 
Not all of us cheat on tests and lie. And dare I say that only a small 
percentage of my fellow students engage in such activities. Those that do, 
however, in my mind engage in immoral and illegal actions. Yes, in some way they 
are stealing. I do not intend to truly discuss what you will eventually continue 
to discuss which is the punishment that ensues if a student in your class 
violates these basic rules of society. I am here, however, to offer some 
suggestions on how to correct this problem.
        My father once told me a story about his life when he was only ten years 
old. Living in the Bronx, he would go to a small corner candy store after school 
and each day buy some sunflower or pumpkin seeds. These came in a small 
rectangular box and cost only two cents. One day, he finished school and walked 
down the hill to the store. The little old man who owned the store was in the 
back making milkshakes for people sitting on the stools in the corner at the 
counter. My father waited, waited, and waited. When the little old man didn’t 
turn around to take his usual two cents my father turned, took the box and left.
	What does that have to do with today’s topic? My father is now fifty-six 
years old and what he did that day still plagues his with guilt and remorse. My 
father has developed a conscience. Perhaps that is what is missing in today’s 
culture. Where do such values emanate from? The family is and continues to be 
the source of any and all such values…values such as concern for others, 
courage, and the strength to stand tall in the face of adversity, the integrity 
to tell the truth all of the time and not when it is just convenient, the 
curiosity to reach out, intentionally discover all the world has to offer and, 
of equal importance, the leadership to help others become all they need to 
become.
	I am indeed fortunate to have a family that has been involved with 
character education. My father is the director of an alternative high school 
that focuses entirely on character development. He is constantly answering the 
questions that I have mentioned. He works every single day with families who are 
trying to figure out what they and their children aren’t able to make 
connections with the values I have mentioned. My mother also reminds me of the 
definition of ethical behavior and doing the right thing. Parents know what is 
right. However, to do what is right often takes strength, courage and conviction 
often lacking in many parents today.
	What goes on in college students’ minds when he or she copies from 
another’s work or does not give credit when credit is due? Is what goes on in 
their mind not really the problem but rather that there is little thought given 
to honesty or integrity? Families today are more concerned about grades and SAT 
scores in order to get their students into prestigious colleges and are, 
unfortunately, less concerned with how those grades are attained. It comes to be 
more and more acceptable to lie, cheat or steal in order to get the grades and 
get accepted into those colleges. Often, these are the students who continue to 
do what their parents have taught them to do. The pressure their parents feel is 
transmitted to their children and to your students in your classrooms throughout 
the state. They have come to believe that hard work is often not enough and they 
think they must plagiarize in order to get the grades.
	I offer you a three-pronged approach that our society must adapt in order 
to return to the basic value system that made us the great nation that we are. 
Integrity must, once again, become the cornerstone of the home. Parents must set 
the example and live lives of truth and honesty. The media must encourage and 
promote the idea that doing the right thing is the right this to do. Michael 
Milken made his billions by lying and stealing, not using his god-given 
intelligence to creativity. His way to success is not to be applauded. Finally, 
there is no modeling other than role modeling. The people we choose to emulate 
and model should always be of the highest moral standing. The key to all of this 
and our future is education. We must teach students the value of original 
thought and we must teach them what plagiarism is and how to access information 
written by others and then use such information with honesty and integrity.
	Plagiarism is nothing more than stealing. This is not acceptable in any 
society, or is it? This is a question that you cannot fully answer today, but a 
direction we can certainly take.
	Thank you.

Dr. Chip Morris (Potsdam): I am a very strong believer in the idea that if we 
are to hold students accountable, we need to explain and articulate very clearly 
what those expectations are. I’m not sure that, as institutions, we always do 
that as well as we should. As institutions we can do these through a variety of 
measures. We can articulate those expectations and those core values. At Potsdam 
we happen to have what is referred to as the “Potsdam Pledge.” It’s in your 
packet. I think it’s a simply stated set of core values for our institution. 
Students who go through orientation receive it in a credit card sized copy and 
they keep it with them. I am often surprised by the student who comes up to me 
and says that they still have it. Sometimes it’s the student that I’m facing 
across the desk when they haven’t made a particularly appropriate choice in 
their behavior. But I think it’s a very important beginning for the student to 
see what the core values of the institution are.
	There is also a copy of our academic honor code in your packet, not 
because I think that it is the very best, but I’m not sure that all SUNY schools 
have one and I believe you should. There are some important components here for 
us. The front side is a bit more philosophical and it does end with, “On my 
honor…” I have students sign that and the pledge to follow this. There is 
research out there that indicates very clearly that when you require a student 
to review and make a commitment, they are more likely to follow the ideas 
related to that commitment. The backside goes into specific detail about what 
academic honesty is so that you don’t violate our policy.
	I believe that not only should colleges articulate these expectations, but 
each and every faculty member should as well. The syllabi are a perfect 
opportunity for this. I’m a believer that we need to repeat over and over again 
that academic integrity is an integral part of what the academy stands for. 
Faculty can do that in their first class meeting and over and over against they 
request assignments that will receive academic credit.
	A growing number of courses encourage and allow group work. I think there 
is often significant confusion on the part of students about what that means. 
Does that mean that I work in a group so that everyone in the group can 
understand the idea behind the theory and then go and do independent work? Does 
that mean that we can work as a group to understand the theory and then do some 
common work? Can we turn in the exact same work? I think that means students are 
genuinely confused by that and as faculty we need to clearly articulate what our 
expectations are for that class. It’s very real that my expectations may be very 
different than another faculty member’s. We really need to clarify that.
	In my class I have students sign something that says, “On my honor…” 
whenever they submit work for academic credit. It is another way to remind them 
that this is an important value for me and that it should become an important 
value for them. When they are constantly reminded, they are more likely to live 
up to that expectation.
	Now, what I recommend you do when you come across an act of academic 
dishonesty. First and foremost, I think it’s important for every faculty member 
to know the rules or your college and then to utilize them. At SUNY Potsdam I 
think that we have made it relatively easy for faculty to avail the judicial 
system for acts of academic honesty. I think it’s important that they do that 
for several reasons:

1. When it goes through one office as opposed to a dozen different faculty 
members, we have a much more consistent response to these incidents.
2. It allows for a common site for record keeping. I’ve had faculty tell me that 
they do it themselves and if they had it again, something else would happen. 
What they don’t always know is that because it’s the first act of academic 
dishonesty between a student and them, it doesn’t mean that it’s that student’s 
first act of academic dishonesty. Unless we have a central location to keep 
those files there’s really no way to know that.
3. By utilizing your campus’s judicial officer and system it shifts almost any 
legal liability from you to the judicial officer. I would think that would be 
wonderful.

        There are three or four fairly current cases that have come through the 
courts and that have indicated that the courts do not want to get involved in 
assigning a grade based on whether you think it’s a good paper or a bad paper. 
That’s your job as the faculty member. It is clearly stated that when you assign 
a grade because you believe that there has been an act of academic dishonesty, 
it is now a punitive judicial act and there are certain specific due process 
obligations that you need to afford the student. 
        It’s my sense that they are genuinely unaware of what due process means 
and what is required by law. It’s what we in judicial affairs live by. We have 
to know it, be familiar with it, and follow it or what we do will be thrown out. 
So we’re fairly well versed in it. Because you are familiar with it, I feel that 
it is less likely that we will make a mistake that will cause a court to 
overturn a decision relative to a sanction or punishment concerning an act of 
academic dishonesty. 
        I will close by saying that I have great faith in our students to do the 
right thing and to do it the right way, especially when we help them to 
understand what we believe our core values to be.

Mike Andolina: This is for Chip. There has been some research about ethics codes 
that were developed from the bottom up instead of from the CEO on the top down. 
The CEO tended to be distanced from the actual implementation of the codes when 
they did some research and experiments where the employees from all ranks were 
involved in designing codes to internalize codes for. Has this been tried with 
students? Having students involved in writing codes every year would make them 
more likely to understand the codes and would be able to share them with their 
fellow students. If either of you could respond to that…

???:  In 1995 I looked at a variation of schools that had honor codes and the 
point is that those honor codes with the highest levels of student involvement 
were the most effective. The students say themselves that you’ve got to get the 
body into it before anything will work. There is a lot of evidence from Rutgers 
and other places as well at both the corporate level and the university level 
based on the honor code.

Chip Morris: Mike, I would agree. At Potsdam we are involved in the rewriting of 
our academic honor code. I think that any time a group is going to have the 
rules apply to them, by participating in those rules… I mean, we saw today in 
the discussion about assessment that they are going to buy into it more than if 
it’s just imposed on them.

Norman Goodman: Stony Brook was studied and I’ve seen some of the results. In 
light of this conversation about getting students involved, they are prepared to 
do so. One comment from a student in our study was, “Make it stop. Those of us 
who work hard are pissed.”

Janet Nepkie: Thank you for that pithy comment.

Donald Stevens: I wonder if our colleague from Potsdam has looked at any of 
these issues from a legal standpoint has any sense as to whether sanctions which 
may vary from one end of the punishment spectrum (don’t do this again) to the 
other (you’re out of this school) are sustainable legally in a system which is a 
university as whole…whether the various outcomes on various campuses are 
sustainable in the courts.

Chip Morris: I am unaware of a specific challenge on that basis. I can tell you 
that every successful challenge has been on the basis of process, not sanction 
and that the courts have been… (end of tape)

…I wonder if I might, as a friendly suggestion to the senate, to perhaps explore 
best practices and processes on the various campuses and to perhaps offer 
guidance to campuses to make sure that their processes are as effective and 
legally defensible as possible.

Dick Collier (Albany): Albany’s experience was that it is not appropriate to 
assume that ignorance to the law is no excuse. Too many of our students come in 
completely ignorant of plagiarism as an issue honestly not seeming to have heard 
in high school any distinction of discussion of citation versus quotation and so 
forth. As a result, our library has come up with very nice tutorial information 
that we are going to be putting in our bulletin and encouraging the instructors 
of freshman level courses to refer students to this online work so that they can 
tell what the rules are on plagiarism.
	My second point is that after hearing all of these lead-by-role-modeling 
examples, I sincerely hope that the governance committee comes forth with a 
strong, solid document for us to consider at our fall meeting concerning 
plagiarism and other acts on the part of our faculty.

Paul Brodsky: This is for Don...out of curiosity; would you know what the rate 
of cheating or plagiarism at a place like UVA where it’s a one-strike-and-
you’re-out type system as compared with an honor system with less draconian 
results?

Don: That’s a very tough question because UVA is unique in its size. If I look 
at schools other than UVA I am convinced that the draconian penalties are not 
what makes these systems work. What makes them work is the level of student peer 
involvement and the fact that they are addressing the issue. All else being 
equal will make the system feared by students and therefore be more effective. 
There are many other ways to go about it. At one all-female school the penalties 
aren’t that draconian, but they’ve convinced students that every student has a 
role to play and that if you see cheating your obligation is not to report it 
but rather to confront it, speak to that student, and talk about how they are 
violating the peer principles at that school and making it worse for everyone 
else. Regarding plagiarism as a result of competition…they also have an 
unwritten rule there that most of the young women adhere to that you don’t 
discuss your GPA or your grades with anybody.

Janet: The other thing for all of you to think about is that a great deal of 
copying both face-to-face and online is legal now. It is therefore necessary for 
us to know the copyright law or to know the expert on campus who can educate us 
about it.

???: I assume that judicial affairs is located under student affairs? One of the 
things that I have noticed is a frequent disconnect between the academic side 
and the student affairs side. You presentation was a good example of why we need 
closer association between the two.

Peter Knuepfer: When we enacted some significant changes to our honesty code a 
couple years ago, we went through some extensive discussion in the faculty and 
then between the faculty and student affairs about adjudication of issues should 
be housed. Both groups felt, for perhaps different reasons, that the 
adjudication of academic integrity issues should be housed with faculty in the 
academic side of the campus. In fact, the dean of students from student affairs 
told me that he didn’t want to be involved in that and I would be curious as to 
your comments about what kind of a model you think works more appropriately and 
which one works better.

Chip Morris: I don’t think that there is one approach that is better or that 
works better or more efficiently. I can clearly understand why the majority of 
people would say that this kind of issue belongs in the academic side. I don’t 
see anything wrong with that. What I think is required if that happens is that 
you need someone who is well versed in what due process means and what the 
courts have said about what must be done. It’s just that, generally speaking, 
it’s not an area of expertise for most faculties, nor do they often express a 
real interest in learning it.

Janet: It’s time for that last observation or admonition from each panel member. 
Stephanie?

Stephanie Gross: I think that this discussion was really terrific and I would 
encourage that it continue at length. I don’t think that you would even have a 
true solution but rather a good idea of best practices from each campus. As we 
agree, assessment can’t be the same at each campus. You students are different 
at each campus and maybe you need to look at best practices and have a different 
setup at each of your campuses regarding what’s best for your students.

Tom Mackey: When Stephanie said that most of her peers are not doing this, I 
think that that is very true. When we look at these statistics they can be very 
dramatic and make a teacher cynical about what is happening in the classroom. I 
think that we need to resist that and accept the fact that most students are not 
doing this kind of activity.

Don McCabe: I highly recommend an organization I am a part of called “The Center 
for Academically Integrity Based Student University” as a source of information 
if you are going to move forward and do something. It’s a valuable resource with 
a website (www.academicintegrity.org) and you can see what it’s all about.

Chip Morris: It’s important to remember that the larger topic of academic 
honesty goes to the heart of what the academy stands for. We all need to ensure 
that grades, credits and diplomas mean and stand for something and that it’s the 
actual attainment of the knowledge. That’s why students are there whether they 
know it or not. It is learning and we need to help them understand that. 
	I believe that the majority of students want to do the right things for 
the right reasons but at time we need to help them. They also require that we do 
our job, as difficult as it is sometimes, because these confrontations are not 
fun. We need to help create a level playing field so that the student who does 
not want to cheat can’t rationalize it by saying that everyone else did and that 
they got a poor grade on that test when those who didn’t study as much and did 
cheat got a better grade.

Janet Nepkie: I’d like to thank our four speakers. Thank you very much. 

Joe Hildreth: I’d like to give our panel a final round of applause. It’s time 
for our traditional Senate reception and you may leave your things here because 
we are meeting here tomorrow. 




Saturday morning session

President Hildreth convened the meeting at 9:00 am

(Roll call on Saturday morning)

Joe Hildreth: The Executive Committee has a resolution that we would like to put 
forward. Our awards committee created a University Faculty Senate Outstanding 
Service Award and that was voted on at our last plenary. They will be presenting 
criteria that were established for the award today. This is a resolution to 
change the name of the award to include the name of the man who decided that he 
wanted to give the Senate an endowment which would be enough to generate a $500 
cash award to go with this award.
(Reads resolution) It’s very simple.
	It looks like we are ready to vote. All those in favor, please signify by 
saying, “Aye.” Those opposed, “Nay”? It passes without dissent. 
	The next item would be the resolution on bill A07141.

???: There is a bill sponsored by Ron Canistrari who is the chair of the 
assembly higher education committee. This bill would provide for membership of 
the President of the Faculty Senate to be ex-officio and non-voting on the 
Board. This would give faculty a voice on the Board. This is something that CUNY 
has had since 1976 and that voice would be very important.
	This resolution intends to show the support of the Senate for the bill and 
also to establish that the interpretation of the bill should be that the voting 
rights of the student. The trustee member should continue and to ask Chancellor 
King, Chair Egan and the members of the Board to support the passage of the 
bill. (reads bill)
(discussion near and away from the microphone regarding the language of the 
bill)
	Okay, are you ready to vote? All those in favor of the resolution say, 
“Aye.” Opposed, “Nay?” It passes without descent.
	Our next item is going to be a resolution on ACTG. In the past the union 
has not supported this bill but it is now. The background on this is that we 
wanted to talk about the process of nomination of members on the general 
education assessment review group and the advisory council on general education. 
We wanted to recommend a specific term of service since that does not exist now. 
(reads the resolution)

Ken: In the CGL meeting yesterday, the issue of the relationship between the 
University Faculty Senate and the GEAR group and particularly the nomination 
process for membership came up first as a question. It’s one I can’t answer. As 
I understand it, there are eighteen members of the GEAR group. That group, 
according to the business we enacted yesterday, has seemed to take on some 
greater meaning in terms of the lives of general education across the system. 
Could we have a brief explanation about how many people are specifically pointed 
to the GEAR group? When we say the nomination of members, what percentage of the 
members will in fact be nominated by the University Faculty Senate?

Joe Hildreth: The basic composition was established before I came into office. I 
have put a couple of people on as people have retired. If asked, I basically 
look for someone like a historian to fit, for example, the comprehensive 
colleges and then I ask for recommendations. That is what I’ve basically done in 
the few cases where I’ve made an appointment. I would certainly be willing to 
reach out to the CGLs and to people when we’re looking for someone to be a 
member of that group. It’s basically just been me making calls and trying to 
determine who would be appropriate for that and if I knew them fine and if I 
didn’t I’d call people to check up on them.

David Carson (Buffalo State): I have a concern as one of the co-chairs of ACGE 
that it would have been nice to have been consulted on this. We always talk 
about consultation and so I have some ideas I’d like to share with you. My 
specific question is when this would go into effect.

Dick Collier (Albany): I believe that the Faculty Council is to be equally 
represented and there was a mechanism to ensure that as well as you are 
planning.
 
Norman Goodman: This motion states what the Senate preference is. We would urge 
the Faculty Council to have a similar discussion and similar action but it’s 
their decision how their representatives are sent to the committee.

Joe Hildreth: We couldn’t presume to make a motion on their behalf. In specific 
terms of service, we could insert “beginning the fall of 2006” and that would 
make this a better resolution.

Bob Brumm (Alfred State College): It appears that we have covered a number of 
aspects here and it sounds logical to me that we should get things lined up 
correctly. I’m going to move that we table this motion.

Joe Hildreth: That would need a second and it won’t be debatable. There’s a 
second. Oh, we need a vote to table it.

???: If you table it you can take it up today at this meeting. Or, you can take 
it up at the fall plenary. Other than that, you can’t do anything with it.

Joe Hildreth: We need to vote on this. All those in favor of tabling the motion 
say, “Aye.” Opposed, “Nay?” Okay, it’s not tabled.

Bill (Buffalo): I move to refer this motion to the Executive Committee for 
revision and resubmission at the next plenary meeting. (There’s a second.)

(heated discussion and debate about why it is or is not beneficial to table the 
motion until the fall plenary and whether or not to refer the motion to the 
Executive Committee)

Joe Hildreth: Are we ready to vote? All those in favor of referring the 
resolution back to the Executive Committee please signify by saying, “Aye.” 
Opposed, “Nay?” Okay.
	Peer, would you like to give some background on this next issue?

Peer Bode: The issue involves the resolution that was passed in the New York 
State College of Ceramics. I’d like to say that this college is a statutory 
college and the statutories exist at Alfred University and there are some at 
Cornell University. Statutories are public institutions that live within closed 
institutions.
        The specifics of the resolution were supported unanimously by the 
faculty of the college in addition to former deans who participated in the 
discussion as well. The resolution was to move the unit head position which is 
presently in the provost’s office and has been for the past three years and to 
move the head of the college back into the college where it has been for the 
last one hundred years. The sense of this is that the statutory piece, the 
college, is in fact being absorbed into the private university. There is a lot 
of information about this and I can give you two pieces to give you a flavor of 
it.
        I’m glad to be here among my colleagues and be able to refer to the New 
York State College of Ceramics. Within Alfred University I can’t say that name 
within our publicity. We have to take it off our literature, etc. Our college is 
disappearing within the university. Within a year our paychecks will no longer 
be state paychecks; they will be Alfred University paychecks paid by the state. 
There are a number of examples of the disappearing of the college into the 
university where the motto is, “One university with distinctive features.”
        Basically, what this resolution that the faculty unanimously supported 
is asking for is to rebalance the statutory/non-statutory partnership which is, 
at this point, out of balance. It’s a governance issue; it has severe 
consequences that go way further than the examples I explained, which are 
obviously important. There are world-class programs at the college which are at 
risk. That is some of the immediate concern. The statutory is a unique kind of 
construct and the large extensive programs are being absorbed into a small 
liberal arts university. I wanted to share with you what it is that’s going on 
to clarify a little bit what the resolution is.

Don Stevens: At the Executive Committee I suggested a sense of the Senate, a 
statement, that I think would pick up on the Chancellor’s statement last night 
that he feels that he needs to reengage the leadership of Alfred University and 
the issue that will need to be resolved between the Chancellor, the university, 
and the president of Alfred University. (He reads the statement.)
	My sense is that this body can’t really tell a particular campus what’s an 
appropriate administrative structure, but this sense of the Senate would ask the 
Chancellor to engage in that discussion, which I think he’s inclined and wants 
to do. I think it would be supportive of the process and supportive of the 
faculty of the Alfred University.

Peer Bode: It’s clear that the Chancellor needs to reengage and there’s also a 
value in the faculty here showing support to the faculty of the college. At this 
moment we are very much without support and advocacy and the symbolic weight is 
a real weight in terms of the support of fellow faculty. I’m very glad that the 
Chancellor is interested in reengaging.

(wordsmithing debate)

Joe Hildreth: Hearing this discussion…my interpretation would be that the Senate 
cares about this and we share the concerns that Peer has. We want this 
flexibility, we think this is appropriate and we want the seated Chancellor to 
engage in that. There is quite concern here and we are going to be monitoring 
the situation.
	Are we ready to vote? All those in favor of the sense of the Senate, 
please signify by saying, “Aye.” Opposed, “Nay?” It passes without descent.
	We have a resolution by our student assembly that we wish to endorse, but 
I don’t have anything in writing to support that so we are not going to take 
that up right at this moment in the meeting. We’ll wait until we get that paper 
and deal with this a little bit later today.
	I’d like to go to our committee reports. Let’s go to the awards committee 
and Marvin LaHood.

Marvin LaHood: Justin and I just have a brief report. Two things about the 
University Faculty Senate Outstanding Service Award that have come up today… 
Nominations by any member of the University Faculty Senate and the recipient to 
be chosen from nominees by the University Faculty Senate Executive Committee…I 
have commend at the last plenary that this would be done in this body and, 
surprisingly, this body turned it back to the Executive Committee.
	The only criterion is, “The sustained service above and beyond what is 
ordinarily expected of a senator committee member or officer.” We thought that 
we’d leave that simply enough. That is the most important thing we’ve been 
involved in.
	The most important thing we’re doing at the moment is meeting in Buffalo 
on May 7th. We’re currently evaluating twenty-nine applications for 
conversations from the disciplines. Justin has been very much involved with this 
over the three years so he is going to make a presentation.

Justin: There’s not much of a presentation other than that we’ve now been 
restored to thirty thousand dollars which we’re very grateful for so have more 
money to distribute. Essentially, we’ve had twenty-nine portfolios this year 
that we’re evaluating. They come from basically every sector and pretty well 
have good representation of SUNY as a whole. We’re very pleased.

Joe Hildreth: Let’s move on to the governance committee.

???: One of our projects for this year was completed. You all passed two 
resolutions concerning resources for campus governance at the last plenary. 
Three other projects, unfortunately, are somewhat behind schedule. We anticipate 
completing those sometime during the summer, I hope. During the course of the 
year, we were given two additional projects by the Executive Committee and Ron 
will speak to those.

Ron: In January, I was welcomed back to the committee with what I thought were a 
few wonderful hot potatoes. One of them was that there were issues raised from 
our colleagues at Albany regarding the circumstances revolving the establishment 
of the School of Nanotechnology. There were questions having to do with the 
financing, with resources that were (indecipherable) to it, faculty were taken 
from the department of physics to establish it… This school has wonderful new 
facilities across the street from the Albany campus. What were financing 
arrangements…what will the impact be on the institution over the long haul… it 
becomes an intertwining web.
	Ray Guydosh and I worked on putting a couple of visits together and I 
think that our first task was to try and figure out what we could fight off and 
what we were unlikely to get to the bottom of. With that in mind, we visited the 
Albany campus meeting with a number of faculty in mid-February and we were 
struck by a couple of things. First, not one of the faculty members we spoke to 
opposed the establishment of the school. The complaints that we got had largely 
to do with procedural issues and was the requisite consultative process 
followed. The allegation there was that it was not. Some peripheral issues were 
raised but person after person came forward with the same story: process, 
process, process.
	We attempted to meet with President Hitchcock but she had left by that 
point. The provost had accepted a position elsewhere and we were unable to meet 
with him. We did meet with the dean of the School of Nanotechnology and three of 
his faculty just a couple of weeks ago.
	On both sides there is a perception that the other side has one or more 
demons among them. There are strong personalities. Part of what we were trying 
to sort out was who said what when. That is a very difficult thing for two of us 
to come to a campus and try to figure out in six to eight hours. A couple of 
themes did emerge and do have wider applicability. By and large, all of the 
people we met with have pretty much the same set of facts with some minor 
difference in interpretation from point to point.
	Was there adequate consultation? Was it sidestepped or skirted? I don’t 
think we can get what the intent was, but clearly the two parties had different 
perceptions of what they saw the consultative requirements were and whether they 
were met. With that said, there was not a well understood set of processes that 
all had bought into prior to the discussions to establish the School of 
Nanotechnology. That ultimately led us to a series of recommendations which we 
brought in resolution form but we are not going to introduce the resolution 
today. It’s not quite ready for prime time yet so we’ll take it back and fix it.
	The lessons here are, first, that each campus needs or should within its 
bylaws have a very carefully articulated  process for reviewing proposals for 
academic reorganization, academic reorganization from program discontinuance…the 
latter being a flashpoint with some members of the body ripe with all sorts of 
labor management issues as well. But the academic reorganization I had in mind 
was the establishment of a new academic unit, the combining of existing academic 
units into a different academic structure, not necessarily with not intent to 
diminish the number of programs. The establishment of new academic programs… 
These should all be bedded through the appropriate governance procedure… A 
clearly articulated process prior to the submission to SUNY. Explicit process 
for approval and changes to the curriculum…i.e. the addition of courses. That 
latter process may and often is different when a new program is approved in one 
time and place while the actual course is perhaps approved by a different body 
at a different time and place.
	We believe that there is a real problem throughout the body with 
institutional memory. Administrative positions turn over with some rapidity. 
What that speaks to is the need for the institutional history to go on. Another 
recommendation that we will come up is that the chair of the local governance 
leader should meet with each new academic administrator as they are appointed or 
come on board. Also, as periodic review of governance occurs, that’s very good 
time to reacquaint the institutional faculty with what the established 
procedures are and look at what’s working and what is not.
	Increasingly, I think that we are going to see interlocking arrangements 
with corporations, other government entities, non-governmental bodies…some of 
these arrangements can be quite convoluted in terms of the Nanotech center…who 
owns the land and what the arrangements are. To the extent that these things are 
done behind closed doors or in a way that they simply do not see the light of 
day, I think that two things happen. First, conspiracy theory. Whether one 
exists or not, when a senior administrator of an institution decides to put 
things behind a curtain or closed doors, it invites criticism. That strikes me 
as a dumb management style. Beyond that, as bedding these things as they come up 
it invites the corporate wisdom of the institution to look at the proposed 
arrangement and improvements will be made and will prevent the institution from 
getting itself into an embarrassing position.
	That’s what we’ve learned as a result of our visits to Albany. The 
circumstances there are still a work in progress. I believe that the Board 
passed a resolution this last week to change the School of Nanotechnology into a 
College of Nanotechnology. For all I know we may be visiting this issue again.
	Thank you very much.

Joe Hildreth: Graduate and research committee?

Gary Kitzmann: There are no action items or resolutions from this committee. Our 
main emphasis this year was the program that was run on the scholarly workshop 
on getting grants carried on at Albany Nanotech. There is a complete listing of 
the program that was done for those two days.
	The business plan that was used… we had $14,000 to throw away, ha-ha, so 
we spent it on food. The business plan was essentially that we loaded it from 
the top down so that it had minimum on advertising…went through and used the 
internet to advertise the program and then to get the presenters we went out and 
searched through the research foundation with the help of Pat Winters and picked 
out, as a committee, the person who would be presenting. These became the senior 
mentors.
	We then had the president send out, through the Chancellor’s office, 
invitations to the Presidents to select the people who would come to the 
conference. As a result of that we got a very good presentation from all of the 
units within SUNY and we ended up with ninety-four participants for a total of 
about one hundred twenty.
	The program went off. We had very few situations in which there were last 
minute corrections like when somebody gets sick. We also did an evaluation of 
the conference and we received a 4.4 on a scale from 1 to 5 for the conference.
	One of the nice outcomes is that we have established an email list for 
senior monitor researchers and junior researchers involved and there is a 
general feeling among the SUNY people that there is one research faculty.

Joe Hildreth: Operations committee?

Paul Brodsky: The budget handbook is finished. We expect copies to be sent out 
to everyone and have a few hanging around. The handbook is online so that 
everyone has access to it. The presentation by our information technology people 
was very well received. The white paper by Maureen is in the works and the item 
on the back page is to be done by the fall.

Joe Hildreth: We don’t have a report from the public information committee so 
let’s go to student life.

Peter Nickerson: Our last meeting Alban was jointly held with the undergraduate 
committee and was a very useful collaboration. We’re still working jointly on 
putting a template on student retention. We had the symposium and would like to 
consider best practices.
	The committee continues to work on Greek life on campus. We’ve not seen 
the legislation on anti-hazing. This is something that we are concerned about 
and what of the major issues on hazing is the definition. Basically, if you feel 
you’ve been hazed you have been. This is something that I’m a little concerned 
about in the legislation. It’s certainly a step in the right direction because 
the public is very concerned about this issue.
	That’s our report.

Joe Hildreth: Undergraduate committee? Norm?.. (tape ends)

Norman Goodman: …which has taken on more meaning in the last few weeks with 
newspaper reports. We’ll work on that.
	The second point on demographic data is something that we have been 
working on for a long time. There was a 1998 report by this committee which ahs 
to do with trying to get SUNY to look ahead. They do look ahead now to project 
student populations but we want to use those demographic data as a committee and 
a senate here to examine the degree to which those factors will tell us 
something about the kinds of programs on the academic and student services side 
that we will need to look forward to and plan in advance. That’s a large task 
and we’re trying to work with the office to use those demographic data and then 
the committee’s structure to consider the programmatic change that might be 
necessary.
	The third item has to do with the SUNY learning network and there has been 
a report before on some of the processes involved here but we are also concerned 
with how the courses get accepted for that and how they define success in a 
course. We’ve has some dispute about what success means and we’re trying to work 
that through so that we understand when SLN tells us it’s accessible what they 
really mean by that.
	On plagiarism and ethics… We had a very interesting and successful 
presentation yesterday and, based on your comments, we may try to get a one or 
two day conference workshop on some of the range of issues that are involved, 
beyond student ethics and plagiarism.
	We’re working on transferability issues. There is a model in western New 
York and we’re trying to see if it’s adaptable elsewhere. The whole issue of 
internships is something that we haven’t touched before but, to some extent, the 
issue is brought to us by our favorite trustee about a year ago who said that 
that’s worthless stuff. We don’t believe that but we need to have some work done 
to demonstrate precisely what is going on in these areas of academic integrity.
	Finally, a liaison from the Faculty Council of Community Colleges raised 
the issue of courses which are taught in the high school but required to get 
academic credit at the college level. Students take that at the community 
colleges and then get approval for that and are accepted there as well as at a 
four-year institution. There is some concern about what kind of academic 
controls there are in that. It’s an area of interest and an area that needs to 
be continually explored. We will be working on that.
	That’s my report.

Joe Hildreth: Public Life committee?

Achim Koeddermann: There is a webpage. However, the protesting members of the 
committee have constantly asked that something be put on that webpage. That 
hasn’t happened yet. Suggested was that showcased campuses would rotate and 
share information with the Executive Committee and then put a showcase page of 
each campus in the webpage. It was also suggested that a presentation like the 
one we had on plagiarism be it on students or, in the future, on faculty on the 
webpage so that the newest things would be there.

Joe Hildreth: Campus governance leaders?

Ken: One of the things that has happened is that the campus governance leaders 
are more fully informed than we ever have been about the University Faculty 
Senate’s business and better informed about the potential relationship between 
local governance units and the actions taken by this body.
	One discussion at our meeting yesterday revolved around the issue of swing 
courses and their relationship within graduate programs. That is an issue that 
seems to be well on its way to resolution within the system. We had a discussion 
of the composition of local senates. A member wanted to know if all of them 
included both teaching faculty and professional staff and we shared our own 
experiences based on our own campus.
	We also discussed some of the issues that emerged from the governance 
committee’s fine report on Albany and this was just a point of discussion 
because, looking at such local governance issues and the procedures at a given 
campus for the way that governance takes place, they are at the heart at some of 
the issues for the local governance units.
	We also had a discussion about the relationship between the CGLs and the 
councils at colleges and universities across the state. That was brought to us 
by UB because although they are invited as ex-officio members, it sounded as if 
the UB council treats the local governance leaders as if they’re part of an 
extended peanut gallery. That was not the case at all institutions and certainly 
not the case at my own.
	The last discussion was given too little time but I think that it’s on its 
way to resolution now was the important of GEAR and the importance of the 
mechanisms by which membership in GEAR is rotated and the relationship between 
this body and the Executive Committee and President and the nomination process 
of GEAR membership. I think that in a couple of cases the discussion focused, to 
a great extent, on strengthened campus-based assessment and focused on GEAR and 
the new importance that GEAER was going to play in academic programs. They 
wanted to make sure that we all understood how people were appointed and for 
what terms and by which mechanisms.
	Thank you very much.

Joe Hildreth: We now have a resolution which is in support of the hazing 
legislation. This morning Stephanie Gross presented a resolution passed b y the 
New York Student Assembly Executive Committee and I’d like to read that to you. 
(reads the resolution) She asked if we could support that and here is our 
resolution presented by the Executive Committee. (reads the supporting 
resolution)
	I think we’re ready to vote. All those in favor of please signify by 
saying, “Aye.” Opposed, “Nay”? It passes without descent.
	She has another issue that was too complicated to deal with in the time 
that we had so that has been referred back to the operations committee and we’ll 
bring that back once they have had a chance to review and report on it to the 
Executive Committee.	
	I believe that brings us to old or unfinished business. New business?

Judith Adams-Volpe: I have two small things I’d like to leave with you as my 
final last words of my eight years in this Senate. First, I think you might be 
facing a crisis soon in terms of the virtual resources that are available to 
SUNY. There is a very difficult issue that has come up about all of the major 
scientific journals and you may need to address that because that will affect 
all of you. I think they are going to have to ask for money from SUNY and I 
don’t know if that’s available in order to continue that contract. There is a 
lot of expertise with you and a lot of expertise can be found if you need any 
help with that.
	I would also like to say that I think the timing might be right for a 
presentation about student athletes in SUNY. The Chancellor just recently 
created a new award for scholar athletes. I was concerned about the negative 
impression of athletics and I think that maybe it’s time for people to see the 
incredible striving for excellence and what SUNY has done with athletics and how 
well we are handling it.

Joe Hildreth: Thank you, Judith.
        I think we’re to that part where we have the tradition of the Senate and 
Dick Collier is at the ready with our poem.

(Dick Collier reads his poem The Black Squirrels of Syracuse)

Joe Hildreth: Our fall plenary will be at SUNY Maritime and there are black 
squirrels there. Thank you everyone and I look forward to seeing you again next 
fall. Have a nice summer.


Presented by Vice President/Secretary Jim McElwaine
Transcribed by Holly Tatnall