Present: C. Carr, S. Doellefeld, B. Dudek, K. Hitchcock, C. MacDonald, D. McCaffrey, J. Pipkin, R. Toseland, E. Turner, E. Wulfert

Guests: C. Santiago

Chair Wulfert called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m.

1. Approval of Minutes
Replace EPC report with the following:
Professor McCaffrey reported that EPC had discussed the modification of class times. Mr. Gibson is to circulate the proposal relating to class times to department chairs.

EPC also discussed the Spring 2000 student opinion survey and ways to try to identify issues underlying the results. Professor McCaffrey reported on his meeting with the Provost on how EPC would approach this issue, and also noted that he had met with Institutional Research. The sense from EPC is that, rather than collect new information, the Council should focus on underlying themes in existing reports.

Professor McCaffrey read a resolution from the Council pertaining to the Council's concern that it was not meeting its obligations under the Faculty By-Laws to provide meaningful consultation on the budget process. He noted that the President and Provost scheduled a meeting with EPC to discuss this issue in the following week.

Provost Santiago reported that he reviewed the EPC minutes for the past three years, and reviewed the By-Laws that speaks to EPC's role in budget discussions. This merits a general review, particularly given changes in the institutional mechanics of the budget process since the By-Laws were written. One important change was the establishment of the University Resources Priorities and Advisory Committee (URPAC), which has an EPC representative as well as a Senate Executive Committee representative. If the Senate wants to alter representation on URPAC, there can be two representatives from EPC and none from the Executive Committee. The President and Provost will meet with EPC to discuss the history on this and additional changes that might be appropriate.

Professor Pipkin stated that the By-Laws are old. He requested that the Council chairs review their charges to determine if they are correct. There seem to be many ad hoc committees, said Professor MacDonald, and URPAC should be a Senate committee. The number of committees should be reduced to make things more efficient. The Executive Committee should appoint a By-Laws Committee to review the By-Laws and/or write a new set. Since everything is advisory to the President, Professor Pipkin said, he suggested asking the President how the Senate can be helpful in this respect and how we can best fill in the needs with Senate committees. Chair Wulfert agreed that the By-Laws should be reviewed and suggested that a subcommittee review the structure.

Provost Santiago stated that information drives URPAC meetings. The underlying philosophy is an important point, said Professor McCaffrey, and there are things that could be cleaned up in the By-Laws. Within a given structure, there is a great amount of room to affect the spirit of what is taking place. The Provost noted that there is a need for EPC involvement in URPAC. EPC would like to hear the views of the Executive Committee, said Professor McCaffrey. He repeated that EPC and possibly all the Councils should review their charges. Chair Wulfert agreed. Professor Pipkin stated that the fundamental issue is that there are two claims on governance: 1) to represent faculty, staff and students to influence the governance process, and 2) to serve the President. Is there some way that governance could meet the President's needs in relation to URPAC?

Professor McCaffrey asked for other comments/advice on how EPC should deal with the budgetary issue. Dr. Farrell reviewed what had happened in the budgetary process in the early 1990s, and how these changes related to the establishment of URPAC. Dr. Farrell suggested reviewing back minutes of the Senate and Councils for a more complete history.

There being no further corrections, the November 19, 2001, Executive Committee minutes were approved as amended.

2. President's Report
Reporting on the budget, the President stated that there are no funds for negotiated salary increases. There will probably be a 5-7 percent cut in Albany's budget. Enrollment is good and the University is looking at other projects that will bring revenue in.

A discussion point in the 2002-03 State budget will be tuition, which is a political issue. Part of the TAP proposal will be held back until the student graduates. Both houses of the Legislature have spoken out against this.

On the capital side, things will probably proceed, said the President. The current capital plan will be extended for another year.

Professor Turner stated that he understood the 2002-03 State budget was to be flat. It is flat in that Albany will receive the same funding as last year, the Provost said, but it is a cut because Albany will have to pay for the negotiated salaries.

The President announced that student fees are still under discussion; she noted that fees are not covered by TAP.

The SUNY system has been included in an early retirement plan, reported the President. The plan states that if a person retires, both the line and funds would be lost. The Governor is looking for a decrease in dollars and lines. She will speak to the Chancellor about this and keep the Executive Committee and URPAC informed. The President did note that each campus could elect not to participate in the early retirement plan. She asked for the Executive Committee's advice.

President Hitchcock reported that the Harriman campus proposal continues to move forward. The University is working with OGS on this. The Harriman campus would be turned into a research and technology park as well as used for academic space. The University, OGS and the Empire State Development Corporation are developing an MOU.

3. University Faculty Senate Report
Professor Turner reported on the January University Faculty Senate meeting. Three items included the budget; a resolution was passed; and a report from the Chancellor. The budget compared campuses with other institutions. Albany's tuition and fees are roughly lower than comparable institutions, although State support is about the same. A copy of the budget report will be available in the Senate Office along with the Budget Request and Summary.

He reported on a long debate on a resolution for the Chancellor to develop a rationale tuition policy. He distributed the resolution. The fundamental problem is State support. It was recommended that the president of the University Faculty Senate advise the Chancellor on this. Professor Turner stated that other University Faculty Senators did not want to support an increase in tuition.

The Chancellor supports the University and sees his role as obtaining resources for the SUNY System, Professor Turner said. He noted that the rate of high school students graduating and entering SUNY is at a greater rate than those graduating. He was optimistic.

4. Chair's Report
Chair Wulfert thanked the Council chairs for submitting their Interim Reports. She is working on her report and will distribute it to the faculty.

Chair Wulfert asked the Council chairs to review and/or revise their Council charges with their members. The alternative is to form a committee and oversee the revision of the By-Laws. Professor Pipkin recommended the Council chairs do this and then form a subcommittee with the Senate Chair to discuss the review/revisions. Chair Wulfert asked the Council Chairs to completed their review/revisions by February 25.

Professor Pipkin asked for nominations for Chair Elect and Secretary for 2002-03. The nominations will be discussed at the March 4 Executive Committee meeting.

5. Council Reports
a. CPCA: Professor Toseland reported that there are cases to review.
b. EPC: Professor McCaffrey reported on the budgetary process discussion and a subsequent meeting with the President and Provost. The President indicated that she would be open to a second representative on URPAC from EPC. Professor John Logan was selected from EPC to serve in this capacity. Professors Logan and McCaffrey will report on URPAC to the EPC. Discussions of URPAC will also be in EPC's report to the Senate. Last semester EPC discussed reviewing the Spring 2000 student survey. A subcommittee meeting was held In December and discussion will be continued this spring.
c. GAC: Professor MacDonald reported that there is a proposed bill under New Business. She noted that a more extensive document would be available at the Senate meeting.
d. UAC: There was no report.
e. RES: Professor Dudek had nothing to report.
f. LISC: Dr. Doellefeld reported that LISC met to discuss the e-mail policy and addressed the comments from the last Senate meeting. The members will continue to campaign for it.
g. CAF�: There was no report.
h. ULC: Dr. Carson reported on the creation of three subcommittees: working on ways to reconnect retirees to the University; examining the Master Plan and Middle States review; and school spirit (what can we do, strategies to enhance and build on).

President Hitchcock reported that the Fort Orange issue is still progressing. Fort Orange will be located off campus and run like similar projects at Penn State or Perdue. Fort Orange will be privately driven, she said. Bill Reese has been involved in this project and has been talking about an emeritus faculty place.

6. Old Business
There was no Old Business.

7. New Business
a. Council Changes. Chair Wulfert stated that the graduate student is a part-time student. No where in the By-Laws does it state that either undergraduate or graduate students have to be full-time. It does state that faculty senators must be full-time. This is something that should be reviewed in the By-Laws. The Council changes were moved, seconded and approved to forward to Senate.
b. Proposed Senate Bill: MS in Literacy and Special Education. There was no discussion. It was moved, seconded and approved to forward to Senate.

8. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
 

Madelyn R. Cicero
Secretary