Minutes of the Southeastern Louisiana University Faculty Senate

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

3:00 p.m., Alumni House

 

I.          Senate President David Wyld called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.  Membership Secretary Mary Sue Ply called roll.  Senators absent: Ahn, Andrus, Bancroft, Bush, Coats, Hathorn, Hoover, Lew, Noto, Ratcliff, and Vidrine.

 

II.         The December 3, 2003 Senate Meeting Minutes were unanimously approved.

 

III.       Invited Guests

A.        President Moffett was a bit late since he was attending Judge Leon Ford’s funeral.  He did make it in time to give senators information on plans for the new and the present University President’s Residences.

1.         President Moffet first offered senators background on how the President’s Residence plans were formulated.

a.         The present structure was built in 1939 or 1940, and most of Southeastern Presidents have lived there since that time.  In 1997, a special committee was appointed, chaired by Senator Mary Sue Ply, to explore possibilities for either expanding the old structure or building a new President’s home. 

b.         The Committee thought then that the best decision was to build a new residence and to use property on campus that might be a proper site for the residence.  Naturally, questions arose of how the university should pay for the construction.  In the mid 1980's, the university had obtained in a land swap property adjacent to the baseball field.  In that exchange, this site was designated as the potential location for the President's home.  The 1997 Committee, however, preferred the land facing General Pershing (at the corner of Western and General Pershing).  The consensus reached was to sell the land adjacent to the baseball field and use those funds toward construction of the new house.

c.         Since that 1997 decision, then-President Clausen decided not to move forward with the new President’s residence plans since other facilities and student housing needed more immediate attention.  So, some landscaping and other improvements were done to the present President’s Residence, but it was decided not to expend lots of money on the project.

2.         In 2002, BOS President Sally Clausen and the Board of Supervisors instructed President Moffett to bring plans for a new residence to the Board, to make arrangements for selling land for assets, and to come up with a plan to raise funds for construction.  Permission was granted in December, 2002, to begin the fundraising efforts.

a.         When President Moffett was appointed Southeastern President in 2002, he reappointed many of the same committee members to continue with plans already proposed.  The committee from 1997 stressed goals for a new President’s Residence that present plans include:

i.          The home should by symbolic of what Southeastern has accomplished in terms of construction and architecture.

ii.          It will be larger (present plans call for 1800-2400 more square feet)

iii.         The home will have a larger area to host official gatherings.

iv.         Since different presidents will have different kinds of families, provisions were made for presidents with young children.

b.         For the past two years, the Development Foundation has successfully raised funds from the private sector and also will receive some type of in-kind funds for the project.

            The architect chosen for the project is Andrew Gassoway, and Southeastern is in the process of finalizing the contract.  And since today (Jan. 21), President Moffett and Dr. Crain received word at the Board of Regents that SLU has been approved for $49 million for new student housing, the time is right to move forward with the new President’s home.

3.         Likewise, plans for the present President’s House include maintaining the integrity of the structure, symbolic of the architecture of 1939-1940.  Moffett assured senators that the home will not be torn down as long as he is here.  He especially wants to maintain the architecture of the exterior.  Possible plans for the structure:

a.         Discussion is leaning toward making the home into a gallery studio for the Visual Arts department.  The department is up for national accreditation this year, so renovation of the present Visual Arts Complex in the Old Bookstore would also be part of the plan.  If the President’s Residence is used as a gallery, one bedroom would be retained as a living area for university guests.

b.         There has been talk of using the home for a Faculty Club, also, but funding would be needed to keep such a club open.

c.         Among measures discussed to keep renovation costs down are to use the Industrial Technology Department to develop fencing, and to do landscaping for the residence in-house.

4.         President Moffett invited Mary Sue Ply to add to his explanation: 

a.         Ply asked if funds had been allocated to furnish such a large structure.  Moffett replied that there are no definite plans, thought that money will be raised in a separate campaign.  The Development Foundation does want the home to be furnished nicely in keeping with the elegance of its exterior.

b.         Ply commented that she has visited other university presidents’ homes, and Tulane’s is especially nice.  We do need a nice interior to match the outside.  In hosting large gatherings, the home would also help the university’s relationship with the community.

c.         Moffett added that the old dorms across the street from the new site will come down and become green space; new dorms will be built.

d.         Senator Bostick mentioned that she taught art appreciation in the 1970s and she stressed the necessity of maintaining the architectural integrity of the present home.  However, the house is structured for residential living—she worried that converting the home to an arts gallery would change lighting and other interior structures.  Moffett replied that the plans are only tentative, and he has had no formal discussion with the Visual Arts Department.  These issues definitely must be discussed; he would certainly not use the building for something like faculty offices—he will maintain the integrity of the home.  It would be nice to use the home to house speakers like the Livingston lecturer and other prominent guests.

e.         Senator Diez asked if the $45 million acquired for student housing is the same amount referenced in the Times-Picayune for the Department of Kinesiology.  Moffett replied that this money was part of a discussion to have a statewide capital building campaign, which would involve a separate capital outlay throughout the state. Southeastern’s  Kinesiology and Visual Arts Departments are next to receive funds, then a multipurpose classroom facility on our campus, all though capital outlay.

f.          Sen. Wyld asked when we might expect groundbreaking of the new President’s Residence.  Moffett replied between March 1 and April 1.  The residence is important since it will serve our presidents for next 60 years and will add prestige to our campus. With our raised admission standards, the residence will also show that we are taking our place as a leader of Louisiana universities.

 

B.         Mike Asoodeh, Assistant Vice President of Technology, was the next invited speaker.  Assisted by Thomas Mocsary in a PowerPoint presentation, Asoodeh discussed recent problems with spyware on campus and off.  He offers the following web link to valuable information: http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Depts/FacSen/spyware.html

(Or see handout section at the end of the minutes)

 

1.      Asoodeh’s big suggestion is when we download free software, be sure to read the agreement, no matter how long it is—they will inform you if they will put parasites on your computer. (Most people don’t take the time to read the fine print).  He recommends the 2 types of software on handout—both very dependable. Spyware is free; adware charges a fee to make sure the parasites don’t recur.

2.      Sen. Schwab offered that  i-55 recommended he run spyware; the program found 40-50 problems; now he checks for parasites once a week and still finds some.

3.      Sen. Higginbotham added he would like to see the University get an Adware license so faculty would not have to get one on an individual basis. We have between 3,000-5,000 PCs on campus; this number gives us clout with the company. Asoodeh responded that they have already looked into it—the cost is $30 or so per PC, so acquiring the license is definitely a budget issue. Higginbotham countered that these parasites can reduce the life of the computer, and people are replacing computers that are still in good working order.  The University must pay one way or another.  Asoodeh assured that they will look into the issue.

4.      An unidentified senator queried if spyware is same thing as firewall.  Asoodeh explained that the university already has a firewall.  This can capture some viruses and parasites, but some will pass through since the University cannot eliminate everything; this would block important information for both faculty and students.

5.      Senator Wyld pointed out that higher security settings on the firewall is sometimes worth it.  Faculty or students might be blocked from some sites, but the higher levels prevent lots of computer problems.  Asoodeh agreed but reiterated that the university must be careful not to raise the security level too high or it may anger faculty and students.

6.      Asoodeh noted one more point: some of the freeware installed on faculty machines might not work any longer when they install spyware.  He urged us to be aware.  Anyone with questions should call #5555 (the Computer Help Desk).

 

IV.       Old Business

A.        Online elections: (Sen. Corbello and the Elections Committee) 

1,         Corbello explained that his committee was charged to see if online senate elections were feasible, and whether the senate constitution should be changed to reflect allowing this type of elections. 

2.         Some departments do have problems with elections; sometimes departments will ask the Elections Committee to come over to facilitate elections. 

3.         Corbello reviewed the constitution requirements for Senate elections.  He has used email votes in departments but there is the problem of anonymity.  He would like to find a solution that makes sense but is fair.  Thus, Corbello asked the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to consider a change from the present Article IV to his proposal (handouts).  So we could use one or both methods, web based or ballot box method.  In theory, the data from Human Resources will mesh with the election software: a faculty member would log in with the W number, the screen would show which elections for which the person is qualified to vote, then the faculty member could click and finish.  This system is ready to go; the programmers are only waiting for our decision.

4.         Corbello described a recent election in the History Department using a traditional ballot box.  It worked fine.  So he thinks offering either method, no presentation needed from candidates, would be better.  He did suggest that some university-wide committees should provide a note specifying which method they would be utilizing.

5.         Senator Yeargain moved sending the issue to the Constitution and Bylaws committee; Senator Nelson seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.

B.                 Sabbatical Leave Issue: nothing at this time.

C.                 On-campus Daycare: nothing at this time

D.                 Academic Potpourri: Senator Ramsey and the Academic Committee

1.   Students Following Multiple Catalogues: Sen. Edwards recapped the multiple catalogue issue (from the December meeting).  She met with Mr. Soutillo and Dr. Doucette and determined that the Administration feels there should be content change in the committee resolution.  The Academics Committee is working on the wording and a report will be ready to present at the next Faculty Senate meeting..

2.   Senator Nelson presented a resolution by the Academic Committee to try to reduce the number of withdrawals each semester (see handouts).  He moved adoption of the resolution; Ramsey seconded. 

a.   Senator Neuerberg moved to add an item to limit the number of withdrawals allowed per student, either per semester or per year; Sen. Li seconded.  Discussion:

b.   Sen. Bostick proposed that, for hardship cases, some other means besides limits on withdrawals.  Senator Wyld mentioned that the Senate Executive Committee discussed some possible hardship cases. Steve Soutillo and Steven Smith have also discussed the issue with Wyld.  Drops are another issue—they’re even worse than the Withdrawal numbers. 

c.   Sen. Yeargain added that any policy would have to have some plan in place for emergencies—medical, national guard, etc.  Therefore, an appeals process must be in place.  Neuerberg agreed.

d.   Sen. Ramsey worried that a number limit for a student’s academic career might drive students away rather than encourage higher graduation rates.  He reminded senators that the bullets in the resolution are just suggestions.  Neuerberg reiterated his desire to add an academic career limit of withdrawals as a possibility in the bullets.

e.   Sen. Brocato mentioned that in the Education 321 1st methods course, students stay in until the drop date, drop it, then take the course again and again; she commented instructors would prefer that person to go to another university.

f.    Sen. Prescott brought up the issue of students readmitted after suspension—they also would need an exception.  And what about the education process—if students acquire that many Ws, they need career planning.  In response, the 1st bullet that suggests counseling for excessive withdrawals was reiterated.

g.   Sen. Bostick asked if this policy could be handled by individual departments.  The Academics Committee thought not.

h.   Sen. Li thought the consecutive semester limit in the resolution is too restrictive; the problems could be a personality difference with a professor.

i.    The vote on Sen. Neuerburg’s 5th bullet:  Passed with some nays. Discussion on the amended resolution:

j.    Sen. Burns asked if the 9-week span for withdrawal is statewide.  Sen. Yeargain thought the Board of Supervisors policy says a student must have at least 1 grade before the midpoint of the semester; then withdrawal must be 1 or 2 weeks beyond the midpoint.  Southeastern has changed the policy to the student must have at least 1 grade before the Withdrawal deadline.

k.   Sen. Li made a motion to strike the 4th bullet; seconded by Sen. Brown.  Sen. Gillan reminded senators that these bullets are just suggestions for the proposed Provost’s special committee, not mandates.  Senator Root countered that, though the bullets are suggestions, she finds students do better retaking course when it’s still fresh in mind.  Senator Li’s motion to strike the 4th bullet passed.

l.    Senator Ply commented that, in English, students will sign up for English 101 6-8 times; she proposed a bullet limiting number of times students can withdraw from an individual course with appeal process. Motion seconded by Sen. Schulte .  Discussion: 

m. Sen. Ramsey thought this was a good idea. 

n.   Senator Simoneaux thought that, if a special committee is appointed, we should be good to go, since the committee will go through all possibilities.  Sen. Ply’s amendment was approved.

o.   Sen. Leonard questioned if all parties involved in the withdrawal process should have a meeting before the student is allowed to withdraw.

p.   Sen. Neuerburg called the question on the whole resolution; the resolution passed.

3.   Sen. Neuerburg presented the Appeal and Change of Grade Policy Change (handout) and moved approval as written.  Seconded. Discussion:

a.   Sen. Ply thought the 30-day appeal limit a problem over the Christmas break. She thought 45 days would be better.  Neuerburg responded that he checked into this past break—30 days from the official grade posting was Jan. 14, well into the period when the Department Heads returned.

b.   Sen. Bostick asked what difference an additional 15 days would make to the student.  Sen. Ply: withdrew her amendment.  Sen. Higginbotham then proposed the same amendment; Ply seconded. 

c.   Sen. Mitchell noted that Dec. minutes dealt with this and we agreed that if resolution said 45 days “or as soon as possible,” things would be fine.  Sen. Wyld  noted, though, that this resolution does not say that; the other resolution was just a draft.  Since the voice vote was too close to call, Wyld took a hand vote: Higginbotham’s resolution did not pass.

d.   Sen. Nelson suggested that the resolution should say the student OR faculty member can appeal to dean; as is, only the student can appeal to the dean.  Sen. Bostick asked why the instructor should be able to go to Dean, and Nelson responded that if the department head reverses the instructor’s decision, the instructor should be able to appeal, too.  Nelson’s amendment passed. 

e.   The entire resolution with the amendment passed, becoming Senate Resolution  #15.

4.   Senator Gonzales-Perez: presented the Academics Committee  resolution on the Academic Dishonesty Policy Change (see handouts).  Senator Simoneaux called the question: the resolution passed unanimously.

 

V.        New Business

A.        Allocation of Raises: Sen. Ply moved to defer the issue to next meeting.

 

VI.       Announcements:

A.        SGA: no report

B.                 FAC/BOS: no FAC meeting in January

C.                 Shared Sick Leave Policy/Pool:  Senator Simoneaux offered the following information:

SHARED SICK LEAVE

Southeastern Louisiana University has a Shared Sick Leave Program to be used by faculty and/or unclassified staff employees.  A summary of the University Policy is:

Shared Sick Leave is leave hours donated by faculty and/or unclassified staff into a shared sick leave pool to be used by fellow faculty and/or unclassified staff who are suffering from their own serious health condition which has caused or is likely to cause the employee to take leave without pay or to terminate employment.  Faculty and/or unclassified employees may irrevocably donate up to 16 hours of sick leave every three years to the shared sick leave pool.

For those faculty and/or unclassified staff who are interested in donating a portion of their sick leave to the Shared Sick Leave program please complete a Leave Donation Form.  The full policy and the Leave Donation Form are located on the Human Resources Website at: http://www.selu.edu/Administration/Depts/HumanResources/hroleave.htm.  Once the form is completed, it should be forwarded to the Controller’s Office for processing.

Simoneaux admitted that she is building up sick leave that she will never take; people on campus are battling cancer and heart attacks and are forced to take leave without pay.  Sen. Yeargain asked if we can be reminded when our 3 years are up, to donate again.  Simoneaux replied that payroll can remind us and send an email.

D.  Senate Elections: Senator Ply informed senators that Brenda Brown will be replacing Judy Cox, who is out with sickness. She will have Campbell as proxy at meetings.  Because Larry Holmes has retired, Chemistry and Physics need an election.  Senate seat in Visual Arts is also vacant.  Ply requested that people encourage other in the Art Department to run for office and to represent their department in Senate.

E.   Ratemyprofessors.com: Senate President Wyld urges all faculty members to check it out!  Once accessing the site, faculty members can click on LA and SLU to see if they are among the teachers students rated. 

 

VII.      The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.  Next meeting:  Feb. 4, 2004

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Joan Faust, Recording Secretary

 

 

 

The following handout and resolutions are available individually at:

 

http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Depts/FacSen/Agendas.html and

http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Depts/FacSen/resolutions.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Handouts

 

Spyware Information by Mike Asoodeh

It is important to protect individual privacy from a simple virus, Spybot Trojans and malicious programming code to the latest Spyware. All are meant to do one thing, record your movements, and reveal them to others so that they may use these actions against you.

Unsolicited commercial software is a program that gets installed on your computer that you never asked for, and which does something you probably don’t want it to, for someone else’s benefit.

This problem has grown enormously, and millions of computers are affected. Unsolicited commercial software can typically:

·         plague you with unwanted advertising (‘adware’);

·         watch everything you do on-line and send information back to marketing companies (‘spyware’);

·         add advertising links to web pages, for which the author does not get paid, and redirect the payments from affiliate-fee schemes to the makers of the software (such software is sometimes called ‘scumware’);

·         set browser home page and search settings to point to the makers’ sites (generally loaded with advertising), and prevent you from changing it back (‘homepage hijackers’);

·         make your modem (analogue or ISDN) call premium-rate phone numbers (‘dialers’);

·         leave security holes allowing the makers of the software — or, in particularly bad cases, anyone at all — to download and run software on your machine;

·         degrade system performance and cause errors;

·         provide no uninstall feature, and put the code in unexpected and hidden places to make it difficult to remove.

There are three major ways unsolicited commercial software can make its way on to your machine:

·         ·         Some freeware programs are ‘bundled’ with parasites, which are installed at the same time. The P2P file-sharing programs are notorious for this; in particular, iMesh and Grokster come with countless unwanted add-ons.

Often if you are careful to read the small print when you install the software it will warn you about this, and it is sometimes possible to opt out. So always read the license agreement when you install and don’t just click Next-Next-Next... but you still can’t be sure they’ll tell you.

·         ·         Many parasites load using Internet Explorer’s ActiveX installation option. When a web page includes a link to an ActiveX program, a window will appear asking the user wishes to execute it. If ‘Yes’ is clicked (or if IE security settings are set lower than normal so that it never even asks*), the software is allowed to run and can do anything on our computer, including installing parasites.

For this reason, you should never click ‘Yes’ to a “Do you wish to download and install...” prompt unless you are 100% sure you trust the publisher of the software, which might not be the publisher of the web site you are viewed — read the dialogue box very carefully.

Sometimes sites (or pop-up ads) try to fool you into clicking ‘Yes’ by stating that the software is necessary to view the site, or opening endless error windows if you click ‘No’, or claiming that the digital certificate on the code means it is safe. It means no such thing. ‘Microsoft Authenticode’, signed by companies like Verisign, means only that the company that wrote the software is the same as the company whose name appears on the download prompt — nothing more.

·         ·         Some of the really sleazy parasites, particularly homepage-hijackers and dialers, execute by exploiting security holes in Internet Explorer, ways of getting code to run that are not supposed to be possible, but are due to mistakes in the browser code.

You can do your best to guard against this by ensuring you have the latest updates and patches from Microsoft. Still, there are usually a handful of security holes that have not yet been corrected, so you can never be 100% sure you are safe.

One way of reducing your risk of exploitation is to go to Tools->Internet Options->Security and set the security level for the Internet Zone to ‘High’. (If no slider is visible, click ‘Default level to make it appear first.) Then set the security level for the Trusted Zone to ‘Medium’ and add the sites you use and trust to this zone; you may need to do this quite often as many badly-designed sites just won’t work in high-security mode.

An alternative solution for the IE problems is just to use a different web browser for everyday browsing and Internet Explorer only for sites you trust or those that stubbornly refuse to work with other browsers.

You can avoid the intrusion of attacks of spybot spyware and stop them from spying on your systems by using an anti spybot spyware utility that is available online, some of them are very basic, others are professional, well designed and impeccably programmed to ensure that spybot malware & spyware is removed from your machine. Also using a firewall can help reduce the error attacks at a considerable rate. If you don’t want people and shady companies to track you down, try using a spyware remover application available on line for spyware attacks. You can download the scanner for Free at the following:

Adaware Information:  http://download.com.com/3000-2094-10045910.html?legacy=cnet

Spybot Information:  http://www.safer-networking.org/

With their ability to scan your RAM, Registry, hard drives, and external storage devices for known data mining, advertising, and tracking components, these can easily rid your system of these tracking components, allowing you to maintain a higher degree of privacy while you surf the Web.  They include improved Browser Hijacker detection, HOSTS file scanning, smart scan mode which improves speed and has been optimized to detect content at the root, and much more. Be aware that some ad-supported programs, such as GoZilla Free, will no longer function if you remove their ad modules.

FROM THE NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

DATE: January 21, 2004

 

RE:  SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE FACULTY SENATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 3.

 

When the election for a Senator has more than one candidate, the Nominations and Elections Committee shall designate one of its members, or any other Senator whose term is not up for renewal, to facilitate voting by faculty of an academic department.  Voting will occur via one of the following methods, to be determined by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, in consultation with the Nominations and Elections Committee:

 

A.     Web-Based Voting

1.      Web-Based voting will occur, at a clearly designated time, through secure and anonymous web-based software approved by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, in consultation with the Nominations and Elections Committee.

 

B.     Ballot Box

1.      At a clearly designated time and place, a Ballot Box will be provided in each department.  The Ballot Box will be closed, except for a slot used to place ballots inside.  The box will be clearly marked “Ballot Box.”

2.      Numbered anonymous ballots will be provided to all eligible voters in a department.  The anonymous ballots will include only the names of the candidates, the office for which all are running, and a box or line marked “FOR” preceding each candidate’s name.

3.      Near the Ballot Box, a sign-in sheet will list the names of all eligible voters in the department.  In the presence of the person facilitating the election in each department, each eligible voter must sign their name to the sign-in sheet, and then deposit their completed ballot into the Ballot Box.

4.      Proxy votes are allowed, but only if a Faculty Senate proxy form is deposited into the ballot box.  The proxy voter must also sign-in with their own signature, clearly indicating for whom they are casting the ballot.

5.      The person facilitating the voting will then count the ballots and report the results to the Nominations and Elections Committee.

 

 

Faculty Senate Resolution 2003-2004-14

Withdrawal Policy

 

Whereas the current policy at Southeastern permits students’ unlimited numbers of withdrawals from courses, and

 

Whereas many students abuse this policy by registering for more hours than they want, knowing they will withdraw from at least one course, and

 

Whereas the most recent statistics available, according to Dr. Michelle Hall in Institutional Research, show that, in the Fall 2002 Semester alone, there were over 4500 Ws, just for undergraduates, and

   

Whereas this behavior costs the University much money because these students do not pay more for schedules over 12 hours, but instead take spaces in classes away from other paying students, and

 

Whereas the administrative overhead cost in processing thousands of withdrawals each semester is substantial, and

 

Whereas many of these students do not realize the negative consequences of multiple withdrawals such as retarding progression towards the degree, potential employers’ and professional schools’ negative view of multiple Ws, and long-term strain on the student's financial resources, and

 

Whereas unnecessary withdrawals lower the University’s graduation rate and thus have an adverse effect on the University’s ranking and funding:

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Provost appoint a committee to study policy mechanisms for reducing withdrawals in general. This committee should look at policy options aimed at restricting and instituting penalties for course withdrawals, including, but not limited to:

·        instituting mandatory meetings with an advisor or academic counselor for students having excessive withdrawals,

·        applying a per-course withdrawal fee,

·        assigning later registration appointments as a disincentive for students who withdraw from classes, 

·        limiting the number of times a student may withdraw from a particular course, subject to an appeals process, and

·        limiting the number of withdrawals a student may accumulate over the course of the student’s career, also being subject to an appeals process.

 

 

FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION 03-04-16

PARKING TAG/DECAL CONFLICTS

 

 

 

 

Whereas situations may arise where faculty members must use a family member’s car that displays a student decal in order to fulfill their duties; and

 

Whereas in such situations, faculty members who have attempted to park in a faculty area using their faculty hang tag have received tickets, due to the car having both a tag and a decal;

 

Be it therefore resolved that the university’s parking regulations should be amended to allow for the faculty parking tag to supercede the student parking decal in such situations.