2006-2007
Faculty Senate and other committee annual reports
Faculty Senate
Budget Review Committee
Annual Report,
2006-2007
The Committee’s purview includes the review of past
all-funds budget expenditures and the discussion of future budget priorities
for the University. The nature of the
accounting and budget reconciliation process is such that the review of
all-funds expenditures for a given fiscal year (which runs July 1-June 30) can
begin only during the following fall. In
general, final budget reconciliation does not occur until the end of October,
and the committee reviews the expenditures at the end of the fall
semester. The committee usually reports
to the Faculty Senate on the prior year’s budgetary expenditures during a
Faculty Senate meeting in the Spring Semester.
However, that was not done in Spring 2007. Thus, this report includes both the report on
the 2005-06 budget year as well as the remainder of the committee’s activities
during academic year 2006-07.
The committee met four times during
the 2006-07 academic year. Our principal
activities were:
Reviewed incremental
increases to campus budget implemented for 2006-07 and planned for
2007-08. Vice Presidents had identified
some $24 million in budget needs, of which about $3 million could be funded. The incremental increases in funding discussed
by the committee included funds to open the Downtown Center, an additional
$500,000 to the base budget to continue
the increase in graduate student stipends, and an additional $800,000 to the base budget to hire additional
faculty (which probably will be around $1.1 million of new money, total of $2.7
million in faculty hiring, in the final analysis).
Reviewed the progress in the
President’s hiring initiative. Over $4
million was added to the base budget over a four-year period to add faculty,
all as part of a goal to reduce the student:faculty ratio to 20:1 (though still
not achieved).
Reviewed the 2005-06 budget
expenditures in light of the previous 5 years.
From 2000-01 to 2005-06, expenditures in Academic Affairs has increased
35% (mostly for faculty hiring and graduate student stipends), whereas core
expenditures across the rest of the University have increased only 9%
(excluding utilities and athletics).
Discussed the proposed and
enacted SUNY-wide budgets for 2007-08. Key
initiatives included full funding of raises added to base (enacted), funding
for SUNY-wide enrollment growth (enacted), funding for targeted faculty hires
through the Empire Innovation Program (enacted), increases in the funding for
Educational Opportunity Programs (enacted), increases in funding for graduate
students (not funded), capital projects
(about 1/3 funded).
Discussed economic impact of
the Turkey
program. It hasn’t grown as large as
originally intended, though the Provost stated that the programs that were
slated to hire new faculty in support of the program were given those hires.
Respectively
Submitted,
Peter
L.K. Knuepfer, Committee Chair
Committee
members: Serdar Atav, Howard Brown,
Shelly Dionne, Robert Emerson, Nancy Henry, Peter Knuepfer, Sean Massey, Frank
Mols, Gary Truce; Student members Michael Schiffman (undergraduate), Nikolay
Karkov (graduate); Ex-officio members James Van Voorst (Vice President for
Administration), Mary Ann Swain
(Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs), Michael McGoff (Vice Provost
for Strategic and Fiscal Planning)
2006-2007
Budget Review Committee addendum
From: Knuepfer,
Peter
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:11
PM
To: James, Gary
Subject: RE: Budget Committee report
Here is
more information from the discussion held on 2 March 2007 regarding the Turkey program.
The
Committee requested information about how the funding that has been received
for the Turkey
program has been expended. Here’s what I had requested:
- Several people have approached
me inquiring about how the funds being generated by the Turkish program
are being spent. More precisely, they are pointing out that certain
departments/programs had been identified as needing new hires to meet the
needs of this student cohort. According to these individuals, such
support hasn’t been forthcoming, at least not as rapidly as anticipated.
Instead they apparently are expected to absorb these students into
existing classes with existing faculty. Now, this is second-hand
information. But I’d like to hear about the budgetary impact of this
program—both on the campus as a whole and on those programs that are
providing the bulk of the education to these students. I realize
this may better be addressed to/by the Provost, and if so I’d appreciate
you forwarding this to her. I’m not looking for an enormous report
here (though if that would be appropriate, we can put this off until the
next meeting). I do expect the topic to be brought up on Friday (and
it’s not just one person asking the questions).
The
responses from Michael McGoff
and Provost Swain
at the BRC meeting included the following points
- The program has evolved to be
smaller than originally planned, especially because one of the partners
pulled out.
- There is roughly $1.3 million
per year in tuition arriving as a result of the program.
- 5% of the income funds tuition
support for Turkish students; this is part of the original agreement.
- The promised hires in support
of the program have been made (according to the Provost—though some
departments take exception to this). However, when lines were
allocated, they weren’t set up as required target hires (I took that to
mean that the Provost considered that hires were given to Political
Science and History, but the departments weren’t required to hire
individuals who would contribute directly to the program offered to the
Turkish students).
Date: September 10,
2007
From: Randall H.
McGuire, Professor of
Anthropology and
Chair 2006-2007
Faculty Senate By-Laws Committee
To: Faculty
Senate of
Binghamton University
Re: Report of the
2006-2007 Faculty Senate By-Laws Committee
During the 2006-2007 academic year the Faculty Senate
By-Laws Committee consisted of:
Randall McGuire - Anthropology (Chair)
William Heller - Political Science
Sara Reiter - School of Management
Dana Stewart - Romance Languages
Sarah Maximiek - Libraries
Matthew Johnson – for President DeFleur
Nancy Stamp – Dean of the Graduate School
In the Fall of 2006, the committee considered by law changes
to incorporate the faculty of the new School
of Education and the College of Community
and Public Affairs. The committee also
proposed changes to the by laws to eliminate reference to the defunct School of Education and Human Development. The committee sent the recommended changes to
the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.
At the end of the Fall 2006 semester, the Executive
Committee charged the Faculty Senate By-Laws Committee to consider revisions to
the by-laws to resolve inequities in the proportional representation of
departments and schools on the Executive Committee and other key
committees. The Faculty Senate By-Laws
Committee forwarded its recommendations for such changes to the Executive
Committee at the end of the Spring 2007 semester.
The Faculty Senate By-Laws Committee finished the Spring
2007 semester with no further work or deliberations on its agenda.
In response to the
committee’s charge to allocate funds for the purpose of bringing programs to
campus that enhance and support the intellectual, cultural, and artistic
aspects of the academic curriculum, and to focus our efforts toward as diverse
a university community as possible, the Convocations Committee awarded funds to
support 18 separate events, 17 of which took place during the 2006-2007
academic year and 1 of which will take place during the coming year. Allocations ranged from a minimum of $200 to
maximum of $800. Our available funds for
the year, including the carryover from 2005-2006 and new allocations, totaled
$12,313. It has been the practice of the
committee over the years to try to maintain and grow a surplus for occasional
more costly events. Allocations this year totaled $8,030 leaving a remaining
balance of $4,283 forward into the 2007-2008 academic year.
The organizations
and events funded by the committee are listed below.
|
Date
|
Sponsor
|
Applicant's Name
|
Allocation
|
|
8/28/2006
|
Women's Studies, PICH
|
Corrine Bertram
|
$
250
|
|
8/30/2006
|
BU Creative Writing Graduate Students
|
Deborah Poe
|
$
250
|
|
9/10/2006
|
Justice Project, Sociology Grad Student Union
|
K.
Santiago-Valles
|
$
300
|
|
9/8/2006
|
Harpur Palate
|
J. Schraffenberger
|
$
250
|
|
9/6/2006
|
Student Association
|
Rebecca Kauffman
|
$
200
|
|
11/14/2006
|
English Department
|
David Bartine
|
$
500
|
|
11/14/2006
|
Multicultural Res.
Center
|
Morales/Johnston
|
$
500
|
|
11/14/2006
|
Three Angels
|
Yakeba Allison
|
$
350
|
|
11/14/2006
|
Chabad
|
Daniel Zenilman
|
$
250
|
|
12/4/2006
|
Multicultural Res.
Center
|
Morales/Johnston
|
$
800
|
|
12/4/2006
|
African Student Association
|
Stephanie Okwudi
|
$
800
|
|
2/7/2007
|
Africana Studies
|
Isidore Okpewho
|
$
800
|
|
2/20/2007
|
Asian Studies Program
|
John Chaffee
|
$
500
|
|
2/20/2007
|
Chabad
|
Daniel Zenilman
|
$
500
|
|
4/11/2007
|
Exp. Media Org./Student Action Collective
|
Stephen Cormier
|
$
500
|
|
11/4/2007
|
Black Student Union
|
Andrea Dozier
|
$
500
|
|
12/18/2007
|
CEMERS
|
Sandro Sticca
|
$
280
|
|
15/5/2007
|
Writing By Degrees
|
Eve Rutheford
|
$
500
|
|
|
TOTAL ALLOCATIONS
|
|
$ 8,030
|
|
|
Balance from 2005-2006
|
|
$ 1,813
|
|
|
2006-2007 Allocation
|
|
$ 10,500
|
|
|
Balance forward into 2007-2008
|
|
$ 4,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
Committee Membership:
1)
Information regarding the total number of
requests and the number funded:
There were 18 formal applications and 2 inquiries. All formal applications were funded.
2)
What kind of criteria the committee used to
determine funding:
The committee used its charge as the major guide for funding decisions:
“bringing programs to campus that enhance and support the intellectual,
cultural, and artistic aspects of the academic curriculum, and to focus our
efforts toward as diverse a university community as possible”. The committee traditionally has not funded
events that did not fit the criteria above or requests for food, receptions, or
parties. Publicity, speakers’ fees, or
transportation are items that were specifically funded. In addition, events that cater to a variety
of groups on campus in general, and undergraduate students in particular, were
looked upon favorably by the committee.
3)
What are the sources of the funding that the
committee got?
The funding came equally from the Presidents’ Office and the Student
Association with $5,250 from each, for a total of $10,500.
DATE:
September 31, 2007
TO: The
Faculty Senate
FROM: Educational Policy
and Priorities
Committee, Hal Lewis,
Chair
SUBJECT: Annual
Report, 2006-2007 Academic Year
Committee Members: Herbert Bix – History,
Elizabeth Brown – Libraries, Benjamin Fordham - Political Science, Hal Lewis -
Systems Science (Chair), Patrick Madden - Computer Science, Al Vos – English,
Stanley Whittingham – Chemistry, 2 undergraduate students (vacant seats), Vic
Chaubey (graduate student), H. Stephen Straight (ex-officio) , Mary Ann Swain
(ex-officio)
The
committee met approximately six times during the fall 2006 and spring 2007 semesters
and discussed various topics via email.
The meetings were less frequent than in most years because there was
less activity involved in reviewing new programs.
The
primary topics covered this year were the following:
Biomedical Engineering Program
Proposal: We finally received a
revised proposal for a graduate program in Biomedical Engineering in September
2006 and reviewed it in October. This
new proposal (combined, both Ph.D. and MS) was radically different from the
original proposals (separate MS and Ph.D.) received about 17 months earlier in
April 2005. The new proposal placed the
major emphasis on the doctoral program and also suggested much less interaction
with other graduate programs on campus, both of which we viewed as neutral
changes. The committee again studied
impacts on the Department of Biological Sciences and various other
factors. One factor that made the
committee more confident was that the Department of Bioengineering went from
only one tenured/tenure-track faculty member in previous years to six as of
Fall 2006. We quickly passed the
proposal ahead to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee with our
recommendation to approve.
Assessment of General Education: Much of the energy of the EPPC this year focused on
discussions relating to general education assessment. We frequently invited Sean McKitrick (new
Assistant Provost for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment) to attend our
meetings and the EPPC Chair also held one-on-one meetings with Sean. Our general view is that while it is
impractical for the EPPC to be involved in day-to-day administration of
assessment procedures, it is still essential for the committee to have a role
in oversight of assessment issues. Thus,
the committee is very happy to have someone here in Sean’s role and also should
continue to meet with him quite frequently.
Some of the discussion concerned four summary reports that were
completed during the summer of 2006 (Critical Thinking and Information
Management, Foreign Languages, Laboratory Sciences, and Oral Communication). We also discussed some of the fundamental
issues concerning how effective the assessment process is in measuring actual
performance. These included the degree
of subjectivity in assessing student work, the difference in performance
between classes where composition skills are assessed and classes where they
are used but not directly measured, and the distinction between assessment
reports going to the state and assessment for our own internal purposes. We suggested to Sean McKitrick ways to
summarize the results of assessment even more concisely (such as bulleted
lists) and to pass those results on to the faculty and other parties who could
most benefit from the information.
Joint-degree Programs: We discussed with Nancy Stamp, Dean of the Graduate School, that although extensive review
is not generally necessary for approving proposals for joint-degree programs,
the role of the EPPC should nonetheless be taken seriously in this regard. We approved joint-degree programs in French,
Italian, Spanish, and physics.
DATE: May 15, 2007
TO: Faculty Senate
FROM: Marilyn Gaddis Rose, interim chair, EOP Advisory Council
RE: Annual Report, 2006‑2007
Membership: Abimbola Allison, Mary X. Britten, Marilyn Gaddis Rose,
Janet Hogan (fall 2006), Orlando Harris, Dina Maramba (for Leo Wilton), Mabiel
Rodriguez, Wen Ruan, Kelvin Santiago Valles, Nancy Um, Vanessa N. Young
Ex‑officio: Donald Blake, Francine Montemurro, James Pogue, H.
Stephen Straight
The EOP Advisory Council met four times during the academic year. In
December its members helped with the interviewing of an additional academic
advisor and Summer Program coordinator for the EOP Office. (Because of the
mandated Council constituencies, finding acceptable meeting times was extremely
difficult.) The interim chair met with Dr. Pogue after the final spring meeting
to identify potential council members.
EOP Advisory Council chair Janet Hogan took retirement in December
2006, and the Faculty Senate appointed Marilyn Gaddis Rose to complete her
term.
Thanks to the able leadership of James Pogue, EOP director, the
Council could limit its activity to support and applause, especially with
respect to his initiatives with Men of Color in Higher Education, Multicultural
Explosion (April 27, 2007), and upcoming Summer Program. It was pleased to
learn of the recruitment of alumni/ae and the addition of scholarship monies.
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Gaddis Rose
Intercollegiate
Athletics Committee
2007 Report to
Faculty Senate
June 15, 2007
Preface:
Binghamton University
is committed to being a NCAA Division 1 institution. The campus has two formal representative
bodies, with partially overlapping membership and responsibilities, that deal
with intercollegiate athletics. The SUNY
system requires that each campus have an Intercollegiate Athletics Board (IAB)
that makes recommendations directly to the President. The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC)
was re-established by the Faculty Senate in 2001, with “the charge … to make recommendations and
suggest policies to the Faculty Senate regarding the impact of intercollegiate
athletics on academic standards and practices.”
The core questions for the IAC concern whether intercollegiate athletics
are in keeping with the standards of quality and excellence that are the
longstanding hallmark of Binghamton
University. In the campus self-study, submitted to