University Senate
Minutes
September 12, 2005
Call to order 3:00 p.m. Beers Lecture Hall
Roll call- 38 Senators present at call to order (63 Senators total attendance)
Approval of minutes- motion Godich/Fleischman- approved unanimously
President’s Report-
Dr. Dillman stated that the SAP campus management is under development. He referred to the “Overview of Campus Management Configuration Issues” (attachment 1) that was distributed to senators prior to the meeting. It is necessary to identify the areas where there can be consensus among the campuses and the areas where there will be flexibility. If some campuses feel strongly about certain issues, they may be able to delay implementation or design auxiliary programs for some aspects. Minimizing the cost is a primary concern.
From the perspective of the campus, there needs to be discussion of issues such as plus/minus grading. Student housing will not be included in campus management. An auxiliary system will be needed for housing.
Dr. Dillman will be attending a meeting of State System Presidents on September 20, 2005 to discuss the configuration. He asked for input from the campus community to bring to the meeting. Sytec will provide feedback to campuses by late November. Feedback regarding campus management should be sent to Campus Management Committee chairs Kathleen Duguay or Susan Chesterton or directly to the office of the President.
Dr. Dillman provided handouts regarding performance indicators for 2004/2005 (attachment 2). Some indicators have improved compared to 2003/2004 figures. In some areas ESU has met or exceeded goals. Some other goals have not been met. The indicator results identify strengths and areas for improvement.
Dr. Dillman stated that ESU has been approached by a national organization that represents state colleges and universities to send someone to China. This is an opportunity to participate in international exchange and possibly establish a relationship with a university in China. If successful, this effort may help generate some outside funding.
Dr. Dillman requested feedback on the class availability report during the coming months. It was suggested that an analysis of graduates via survey might be a method of gathering data. The most common concern seems to be that students are not able to get classes when they need them.
A question was raised as to whether the policy forwarded by the Curriculum Committee on plus/minus grading will be implemented as forwarded. Dr. Dillman stated that this matter would be discussed at the September 20 meeting.
A question was raised regarding performance indicators and how the data is collected. Dr. Dillman stated that the presidents are resigned to the fact that the indicators are here to stay. There is ongoing evaluation of the data and the collection process.
There was discussion about the current serious problems with the financial management portion of SAP and its functionality. The system is cumbersome and support personnel are using credit cards to make purchases instead of using the requisition process. Department chairs have had problems accessing budget information, and overseeing their budgets due to lack of timely information. Chairs stated that there has been no training on budget control and the current manual is outdated.
Questions were raised as to what degree the presidents are questioning the flaws in the modules of SAP that are already implemented before moving forward with the campus management portion. A question was also raised as to whether funding to SAP could be stopped until the financial module is working properly. Dr. Dillman stated that he would consult with the financial experts regarding this matter. He will try to have feedback at the next meeting.
Agenda changes/additions- none
Committee Assignments-
Executive Committee Nominations were proposed to the senate body for ratification as follows:
Committee on DiversityDir. Office of Diversity / Victoria Sanders
Senator 1 / Ray Muller
Senator 2 / Maryrose Wilson
Senator 3 / Patricia Graham
Senator 4 / Paula Kelberman
Senator 5 / Lucy Freck
Senator 6 / Becky Martin
Com. For Div. Rep / Sussie Eshun
Motion Cavanaugh (on behalf of Executive Committee)/Moses
Discussion:
Some effort was made to spread committee membership across divisions. Volunteers were sought
Motion carried unanimously.
Facilities CommitteeV.P. F&A Designee / Anayo Ezeigbo
Senator 1 / Caroline Kuchinski
Senator 2 / William Loffredo
Senator 3 / Kim Sandt
Senator 4 / Jerry Sheska
Senator 5 / Randy Nelson
Senator 6 / Robb Ruiz
Motion Cavanaugh (on behalf of Executive Committee)/Davis
Motion carried unanimously.
Research CommitteeDean Grad School / James Fagin
Senator 1 / Shala Davis
Senator 2 / Raymond Milewski
Senator 3 / Martin Weatherston
Senator 4 / Jack Truschel
Senator 5 / Patricia Crotty
Senator 6 / Lindsay Iser
Motion Cavanaugh (on behalf of Executive Committee)/Ruiz
Motion carried unanimously.
Student Affairs Committee
V.P. Stud. Aff Designee / Julie Del GiornoPres. Student Senate / Allison Peitz
Student Sen 1 / Scott Higgins
Student Sen 2 / Rachel Mercuri
Senator 1 / Nancy Jo Greenawalt
Senator 2 / Phillip Griswold
Senator 3 / Sam Hausfather
Senator 4 / Carole Everitt
Motion Cavanaugh (on behalf of Executive Committee)/Peitz
Motion carried unanimously.
Instructional Resources and TechnologyProvost Designee / Michael Southwell
V.P. F&A Designee / Robert D'Aversa
Senator 1 / Patt Newhart
Senator 2 / Haklin Kimm
Senator 3 / Gary Braman
Senator 4 / John Elwood
Senator 5 / Ramona Hylton
Senator 6 / Janine Boyle
A recommendation was made that committee should also include liaisons from Library, Instructional Resources and Computing Center if committee membership does not include representatives from those areas.
Motion Cavanaugh (on behalf of Executive Committee)/Milewski
Motion carried unanimously.
A member of the Executive Committee will contact committee members and facilitate the first meeting of each committee. Committees can create subcommittees and establish membership on those subcommittees.
Committee on Class Schedules Membership
Peter Hawkes (Convener)
Joseph Miele
Lindsay Arnold
Mary Beth Allen
Mary Tod Gray
Carey Snyder
Elizabeth Gibbons
Otis French
Ralph Vitello
Robert Moses
Enrollment Services Liaison – Susan Chesterton
Facilities Management Liaison – Anayo Ezeigbo
Draft charge
The Ad-Hoc Committee on Class Schedules is charged to report to the Senate on recommendations 1, 3 and 6 from the Course Availability Committee Final Report, dated May 30, 2002. As part of their duties this committee should contact a wide variety of campus constituencies to ascertain their scheduling needs. The Committee should prepare a report that includes the following items:
- A listing of the advantages and disadvantages that a change from the current schedule pattern to a Monday-Wednesday-Friday, and Tuesday-Thursday pattern might incur.
- A recommendation for a specific new pattern that includes identified times for common meetings with information as to how it impacts the needs of the various campus constituencies.
- A report on responses from all campus constituencies to the specific pattern recommendations developed by this committee.
- A list of issues that must be faced if it is decided to proceed with the implementation of this new schedule.
- A detailed timetable for implementing the change, again should it be deemed desirable.
The Committee is charged to provide an interim report to the Senate during its November 7, 2005 meeting. A key part of this interim report shall be the identification of a single revised schedule pattern that will be used in all future discussions. The Committee’s final report will be presented to the Senate during its February 6, 2006 meeting
Motion Cavanaugh (on behalf of Executive Committee)/Hausfather
Discussion:
Motion Everitt/Sanders- Eliminate the word “new” from items #2 and #4 and “revised” from last paragraph. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion Hawkes/Scala- the word “will” be replaced by “may” in the final paragraph.
Motion Cavanaugh (on behalf of Executive Committee)/Hausfather- on charge to committee as twice amended. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion DelGiorno/Duguay- add a Student Senate liaison to the committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
Possible topics for senate discussion were suggested as follows:
· Role of parents, identifying the role and what the university should be doing
· SAP- both the computer system and System Accountability Plan
· University mascot- getting it back
· University website
· Faculty having criminal checks
· Re-evaluating the process for supporting faculty and student research
· Need for a conference center on campus
· Admission standards and criteria for recruitment of a diverse entry class
· Charging the Bylaws Committee to consider duplication of senate committees with other committees on campus
· Facilitating electronic transfer of change of trades
· Plagiarism using technology. How to educate students and implement the academic integrity policy
· Use of recreation center, discussion of possible reduced membership fee for faculty and staff to promote wellness and reduce healthcare costs
· Parking, especially related to construction of science and technology building
The standing committees will meet regularly, with the times and dates to be set by each committee at the initial meeting. Committees will also elect a committee chair at the first meeting.
Motion to adjourn- Mash/Scala. Motion carried unanimously. Adjournment 5:00 p.m.
Next Senate meeting October 3, 2005, Beers Lecture Hall
Attachment 1
Overview of Campus Management Configuration Issues
As a result of the Blueprint development activity, the scope of requirements identified by functional area representatives of the 14 universities has increased in two ways from the original plan. First, technological changes since 1999/2000 have caused certain processes and delivery methods to become obsolete, while others have become a necessary part of campus academic support services. Second, in expanding our understanding of university requirements to include those of all 14 universities, we have identified a greater variation in policies, procedures and data values than previously demonstrated by the five universities that developed the original requirements. To meet these two areas of increased demands, the project teams are carefully and methodically moving forward into the configuration and testing phases of the implementation with the objective of providing as close to state-of-the-art functionality to all 14 universities as possible, while respecting the current differences in university policies and practices.
Given the tight schedule for completion and the budgetary constraints, it would be unreasonable to expect the project teams to be able to deliver all of the requirements identified by the campuses as outlined in the Blueprint document. In order to maximize the effectiveness and value of the new system, it is important to avoid expending scarce resources on automation that is very costly to configure and maintain or which yields low additional value. Furthermore, where possible, we must make the effort to develop common processes and data definitions that serve to reduce the complexities of the configured system.
It is therefore important that we reach consensus on the process by which we will come to agreements on any limitations to the current configuration exercise and it is for this reason that the guidance of the University Presidents is sought.
As we move forward in the configuration of the student information systems, the project teams will identify specific issues as falling into one of the following four categories:
Process
Examples: Processing overpayments (refunds – Financial Aid/Student Accounts Receivables); grade posting dates; alignment of add/drop dates.
Data Values
Examples: Course numbering, grading scales; standard code values for marital status, address type, telephone, etc.; coding on registration holds.
Functional requirements that may/can be deferred
Examples: Business workflow (automation of currently manual processing); full marketing campaigns; potentially costly enhancements to meet local campus requirements.
This category includes (among other things) some local academic policies that would be costly to configure in SAP given the diversity of existing policies, yet have relatively little additional value – many of which can be more effectively automated and managed through existing university ancillary systems.
Ancillary or Peripheral Systems
Requirements that have not been budgeted for under SyTEC, that most universities are currently supporting locally and that will require new funding to SyTEC if they are to be supported centrally. Examples include housing, facilities scheduling, one-card transaction systems, parking, security, etc…).
Over the past two months, the project teams have been working on the development of a ‘baseline’ configuration for core functions using the model of a typical traditional student. As part of this activity, the project teams are identifying specific areas where standardization (of process or data), deferral of implementation (until after all 14 universities are live), or use of ancillary systems would be appropriate.
The attached documents provide information on several issues that have come to light to date. As the project teams continue to expand the configuration, more issues will certainly arise. By design, this first stage of configuration was intended to provide clarity on the more fundamental, or ‘core,’ issues.
The issues identified in the attachments relate primarily to standards and commonality – with some recommendations to the potential benefit of deferring automation of certain processes and/or use of ancillary systems. We have attempted to differentiate academic and financial policies from past practices – with the understanding that past practice is more readily modified than policy.
In some instances, specific recommendations have not been developed (as these issues typically require further analysis). These have been included as informational items.
Finally, while we have made every effort to include the most current information in the attached tables, the majority of the information was obtained from the most recent university catalogs available to us. As these may have been recently updated, we apologize in advance for any inconsistencies or inaccuracies.
Attachment 2
East Stroudsburg University
2004 – 2005 Performance Indicator Results
Strengths
Accountability Measures / Current Year Actual / Performance EvaluationUniversity / # / Measure / Sub-Measure / Baseline/ Target / Benchmark / System Performance Target
East Stroudsburg University / 1 / Degrees Awarded / Degree to Enrollment Ratio - Bachelor's / 23.69% / Met / Met / Exceeded
East Stroudsburg University / 10 / Diversity of Entering Class / Percent of New Students who are Hispanic / 4.86% / Exceeded / Met / Exceeded
East Stroudsburg University / 11 / Enrollment Diversity / Percent of Students who are Hispanic / 3.48% / Met / Met / Exceeded
East Stroudsburg University / 16 / Instructional Cost / Masters Cost per FTE Student / $5,367 / Met / Met / Exceeded
Note: Private Support (not funded but exceeded System Targets on submeasures Rate of Change Private Funds and Rate of Change Market Value)