Arts & Sciences Senate
Meeting
November 21, 2011

I.  Approval of agenda:  approved.

II.  Approval of minutes from October 24, 2011:  approved.

III.  Amendment/Correction to our constitution to bring into synchrony the language concerning “senior Lecturer” (H. Silverman)

The Constitution currently reads:

f. Senior Lecturer Selection Committee (SLRC) shall review all cases of promotion from Lecturer to the award title of Senior Lecturer as recommended by Departments or Programs and the appropriate Dean. On the basis of these recommendations, the SLRC shall evaluate each case and submit its decisions to the Provost for approval. The SLRC will follow specific Guidelines as formulated by the Arts and Sciences Senate Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Policy Committee. 

This will be replaced by:

f. The Senior Lecturer Selection Committee (SLSC) shall review all nominations for the title award of Senior Lecturer as recommended by Departments or Programs and the appropriate Dean. On the basis of these recommendations, the SLSC shall evaluate each case and submit its decisions to the Provost for approval. The SLSC will follow specific Guidelines as formulated by the Arts and Sciences Senate Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Policy Committee. 

and later, "The Senior Lecturer Selection Committee (SLSC)" shall replace "The Senior Lecturer Promotion Review Committee (SLPRC)" (committee membership follows – see constitution).

Vote was taken to adopt the changes to the constitution:  all in favor, none opposed, no abstentions.  Amendment passed.

IV.        Guidelines for the Creation, Modification, Combination, or Closure of Departments, Programs, Institutes, Centers, Schools, or Colleges at Stony Brook University (H. Silverman)

• Based on an existing agreement from November 2010 between the University Senate and Administration
• Document has been augmented and clarified – a whole series of points including procedures and criteria for review and evaluation.
• Has been endorsed by the A&S Executive Committee.
• Document will then be passed on to the University Senate Executive Committee and then to the University Senate. 

Vote to adopt the guidelines:  all in favor, none opposed, no abstentions. 

V.  Report from Theatre Arts on SSC’s (S. Marsh)

• Survey was sent out the graduate students.  They are not so worried about shared services. They did not feel threatened (identity and morale).
• Shared services has been going great so far.  Net gain of staff.
• John Lutterbie is the new chair of Art and Theatre Arts.
• Have had only positive effects.

VI.  Report from the Chair of Theatre Arts (J. Lutterbie)

• Economic crisis hit and there is a potential for decimating departments.  Programs at satellite universities suddenly disappear.  Big political mess for Provost Kaler as to what to do with Southampton.  You have a very popular and successful creative writing program at Southampton.  Their thinking is perhaps the best way to use Southampton would be to create a graduate arts program.  It was decided that they would move the graduate program in theatre arts to Southampton.
• Came up with a proposal for Nancy Squires to restore the MFA in dramaturgy at Stony Brook.  Will do it in a different direction so that it would not compete with Southampton.  The degree at Southampton is not an MFA in Dramaturgy – it is an MFA in Theatre with tracks in directing, playwriting, dramaturgy and film.

• SSC:  see benefits.  Staff was asked to hand in a job description highlighting their strengths.  Greatest concern was job loss. No one lost their job and the anxiety flew out the door.  Only five staff members and they get along well – there is a lot of camaraderie.  There are two assistants to the chair and they meet weekly with the Chair of the SSC.

VII.  Report from the Chair of the Music Department (J. Lochhead)

• Gave a timeline and process of the stages of the SSC process.
• Last spring met with Dean Squires and some of the people from the Bain Corp. who presented an organizational chart.  Continued to meet with Dean to voice concern.
• By Spring of 2012, restructure staff duties according to a model of narrowly defined functions:  Student services, human resources, procurement and departmental operations.
• By Fall 2012, staff duties will be apportioned by function and implies closing the Music Department office and physical relocation of the staff.
• The closing of the Departmental office would be catastrophic. It is immediately accessible and centrally located for faculty, staff and students to interact.  It is the central hub of the music department – a place for conversation and ideas among faculty.
• Music Department has one of the largest graduate programs (250 graduate students), 3 FT staff members and 1 PT staff member.  The department is already highly efficient with the staff it has.  Did not buy into the efficiency model.  Felt that it would be a loss of service to the department.  There would be no money saved.
• Met with Dean Squires last Tuesday and it was a productive meeting.  Happy to say that it appears the department will not be going to Stage 2 of the Plan.
• The Music Department is striving to become a School of Music.   This is in line with the Music Department’s mission statement from 2010-11. This designation would spur advancement of the overall goals of providing a rigorous and comprehensive music education.

Stephen Spector, Chair of the English department on Shared Services within the Humanities:

• The Humanities Building, Chairs and Directors, consisting of 4 departments, the Writing Program and the Humanities Institute were all called in for a similar meeting last Spring.
• They proposed counter arguments against Shared Services.  It would be extremely difficult for a Chair to function without a dedicated support person.
• The response to the counter proposal was that they were misinformed and uncooperative.
• The departments understand the intentions of Bain.  They wanted to propose a network of Shared Services without losing the things they value.
• Six out of Seven Chairs are opposed to the plan.  All of the administrative staff are opposed and three have applied for jobs elsewhere to escape the shared services arrangement.
• It is important to have a document on record saying that the plan should not be pursued without the full consultation and cooperation of the people involved. Would like it to be reviewed by the Provost before anything is implemented because right now the Dean has appointed one of the chairs in the Humanities Building to work without the cooperation, approval or even knowledge of the other Chairs.

• Presentation of Q&A and SSCs with Dean Squires

Dean Squires could not attend meeting and she asked that the Senate not discuss the questions until the February 2012 meeting.  Dr. Mendieta asks that you look over the questions carefully and send an email to him with any further questions.

IX.  Presentation of A&S Senate Resolution on SSCs (E. Mendieta)

• Dr. Mendieta read the important points of the resolution.  There was discussion/debate.

Call to vote on the SSC Resolution:  All in favor, none opposed, no abstentions. 

Resolution passes unanimously.

X.  Old Business:  no old business.

XI.  New Business:  no new business.

Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Submitted by:

Laurie Theobalt
Secretary