College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin No. 12
February 17,
Spring Senate Meeting Dates
Call for Nominations for Senate Officers
Faculty Referendum Vote

Minutes of the Executive Committee, 4 February, 2003
Minutes of the College Senate Meeting, 11 February, 2003
Minutes Graduate Academic Affairs Committee, 18 December, 2002
Graduate Academic Affairs Committee Proposal Summaries



Correspondence:  Terence Bazzett, Department of Psychology,

Sturges 34; e-mail:; phone: (245)-5248



Spring 2003 College Senate Meeting Schedule: All meetings will begin at 4:00 P.M. and will be held in Newton 204.

·        March 11th - Preceded by the All College Meeting

·        April 8th

·         May 6th


Nominations for Senate Offices

The Nominations Committee is seeking nominations for Senate Officers and is required by the Constitution of the Faculty to present a slate consisting of at least two nominees for each position. Please, consider running for Senate office positions.  To nominate yourself or a colleague, contact Anne Eisenberg, Chair of the Nominations Committee (Sociology Department, eisenber


Faculty Referendum

Voting is currently underway whereby faculty members may vote to support or oppose a resolution opposing the President's plan to engage in war with Iraq.  The Constitution of the Faculty of State University of New York at Geneseo provides that the faculty "shall be empowered to decide matters brought to it by referendum".  The constitution further states that "The Executive Committee, by a majority vote of its members, shall have the authority to hold a referendum on any matter of concern to the College Senate or general Faculty".  In the present case, an appeal was made to the Executive Committee for a referendum vote, accompanied by a petition signed by greater than 10% of the general Faculty.  Finally, the Constitution states "The referendum shall be an expression of Faculty opinion and shall not bind the College Senate or the Faculty to the expressed opinion".  In the present case, the Executive Committee voted without dissent to hold a referendum vote.  This decision was based largely on a desire to open dialogue on this important issue and in the hope of enhancing communication and education about the topic.  It is further hoped that every faculty member will take the opportunity to express their opinion in this vote.


Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting

South Hall 209

4 February 2003

Present: T. Bazzett; C. Dahl; B. Dixon; G. Drake; C. Freeman; E. Gillin; W. Gohlman; J. Lieberman; J. Lovett; M. Lynch; D. Metz; M. Schmidt; J. Zook.



Chair Bazzett asked that the Executive Committee consider T. Macula’s request for a Faculty referendum on the war in Iraq.


Approval of Minutes

The Committee approved the minutes of its previous meeting (21 November 2002, Bulletin 9, pp. 83-86) without corrections.


Proposed Referendum

T. Macula (Mathematics) presented a Faculty Referendum concerning the possible war with Iraq. The Senate Constitution required the Executive Committee’s approval for a Faculty Referendum.


J. Lovett asked if this referendum would include students. Chair Bazzett explained that the Senate Constitution allows Faculty to decide on matters by means of a referendum. “Faculty” would be defined by the list of faculty who vote in spring elections. Bazzett also noted that Macula had collected the requisite signatures from 10% of the Faculty.


J. Lieberman asked why Macula had not proposed a referendum that included students. Macula replied that timing was one issue (an imminent war), but also that the Faculty and the Students were separate entities. President Dahl noted that nothing prevented the Students from creating their own referendum. Macula added that he had encouraged them to do so.


C. Freeman asked if the voting procedure would be coded, and Bazzett agreed. M. Lynch wondered what would be done with the results. Macula replied that the results would become a fact; the President or the Senate would not have to take any action on the referendum.


Macula concluded by appealing to the Executive Committee to vote today, as timing was important. He also reported that W. Harrison (English) and D. Bradford (Philosophy) had added their signatures to the petition for the referendum.


After Macula departed, Chair Bazzett called for a motion to approve the referendum. The motion carried unanimously except for one abstention.



Chair's Report

Chair Bazzett spoke about the recent University Senate Plenary Meeting held at Geneseo. He thanked Presidential Assistant L. Wrubel for a flawless job in planning the meeting, and he praised CAS for its excellent catering.


President's Report

President Dahl affirmed that public liberal arts college campus like Geneseo should continue to be an open forum for major issues, and nothing could be more major than war and peace. Dahl hoped there would be discussions of all sides of the issue in the coming months here at Geneseo.  In this regard, Dahl shared the following resolution from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, on whose Board he serves:

RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE PENDING WAR WITH IRAQ:There are few better examples of democracy in action than an informed citizenry openly exploring and supporting or challenging the most important governmental policies and decisions that affect the nation. In this spirit, the AAC&U Board of Directors recommends that member institutions actively encourage and provide public forums for engaging students, faculty, staff and local community members in learning and debate about the issues and implications of the war with Iraq.

Approved by the AAC&U Board of Directors, in consultation with those attending the 89th Annual Meeting of AAC&U, January 2003.Dahl also recommended the upcoming Roemer Lecture on World Affairs, featuring Ms. Nasrine Gross on Human Rights in Afghanistan, on Thursday, February 6.

Dahl offered a brief overview of the Governor's Budget. The proposed $1200 tuition increase, while large, amounts to less than the average increase in public college tuition since 1995, when SUNY tuition was last increased. The average annual increase in public college tuition in the past eight years has been 5.4%. If SUNY tuition had increased at that rate over time, the total increase would have been $1600 to $1800. Moreover, in the past two years, public colleges across the nation have seen an average increase of 16.8 %, and those in Massachusetts and Maryland have experienced midyear tuition increases in the past two months. Dahl also noted that the tuition proposal in the Executive Budget also included a provision for a more rational tuition increase policy.

While the Governor's Budget would expand appropriation authority for us by $196.6 million (from tuition revenue), state tax dollar support for SUNY would decrease by $183.5 million. The SUNY Board of Trustees had asked for a Budget that did not cut our core educational budget; this Budget would at least ensure that result. Although we would have to cover an additional $500,000 in annualized costs, a flat budget for next year would allow us to escape catastrophic cuts. Dahl called this a grim way of looking at things, but the New York State budget situation is very grim this year; California's situation is even worse, with midyear tuition increases and layoffs in its university systems. The Governor's Budget would not eliminate support for EOP programs but would remove EOP stipends (which help support student expenses other than tuition). Furthermore, the Executive Budget also proposes what the Governor proposed last year with TAP: students would receive 2/3 of TAP funding while in college; the other 1/3 would come after graduation (within four years), with interest. Middle- and low-income students would thus be loaning money to the State to help it balance the Budget. Echoing Student Government leader J. Putorti, Dahl said what was really happening was sort of double jeopardy: a combination of a large tuition increase and reduction in TAP. He called the TAP reduction a bad policy idea.

In other Budget matters, a five-year capital program (a completely different budget) of $2.6 billion was proposed, with $1.6 billion for educational building within SUNY. Dahl said that the College's advocacy position, besides maintaining the core instructional budget for SUNY and opposing cuts for EOP and TAP, would include a request for funds the second phase of the Integrated Sciences Building, namely, the renovation of Greene Hall. Such funds would be a special capital appropriation to supplement the regular capital program.M. Lynch asked about the impact of TAP/EOP/tuition issues if Budget talks dallied. How would typical legislative delay affect our local budget? Dahl replied the SUNY Board was discussing asking for a partial tuition increase before the budget is passed, so at least SUNY units could bill for it. Also, the legislature's important attempts to save TAP would probably use up political capital that might otherwise be used for other purposes. Thus it is fortunate that the Executive Budget includes flat funding for SUNY as a baseline. Debates on the budget, as usual, would be happening in

February and March when prospective students would be thinking about Geneseo and making decisions about whether to enroll. Ironically, the funding picture could improve after many students had made their decisions. Thus it is important to stress the stability of Geneseo's situation. Dahl repeated his perennial support for a future policy of gradual tuition increase to avoid the "sledgehammer" effect of sudden tuition spikes. W. Gohlman thought it sad that from the top down, tuition was being tied to how much money was being taken from the system, and that we were more vulnerable because we could charge tuition. Dahl replied that local school aid in the Budget was being cut significantly, even though there is no tuition offset for local schools. A significant marker though, is that we have do have support for a maintaining a flat budget in the Executive Budget--in contrast to what happened in the 1995 budget crisis, when the governor's budget raised our tuition and at the same time cut our core instructional Budget. Even after large tuition increases in that year, SUNY still had to cut about $120 million from its budget.

M. Schmidt asked how much of the tuition increase would come back to campus. In theory, Dahl said, we would be allowed to retain all tuition revenues. Allocations of state tax dollars to our Budget determined by a complicated formula, however. With an $180 million cut in the tax-dollar portion of SUNY's state operations budget, it might be difficult to apply the current allocation formula. Dahl added that only 32% of our state ooperations budget came from tax dollars this year.

Gohlman also inquired if there was any pressure from the Federal or State Government to identify who was most active in anti-war movements? Dahl said the US Patriot Act apparently gives additional authority to law enforcement agencies to track those here on student visas or people who are citizens of certain countries. Dahl is not aware of any attempts whatsoever to track political activities, but he conceded there may be issues regarding civil liberties and academic freedom under the recently passed legislation. This is a concern, at any rate, to several of the national higher education associations, and the Senate might wish to explore it further.

Provost's Report

Provost Dixon discussed doing away with Intersession. She began with some history. In 1991, then-Provost Spencer created Intersession to make money we could keep and to save money by not having all of the buildings fully heated in January. Neither of these has worked out as expected; we have made some money, but not a lot. And since we could not shut Central Systems during the winter, we were not saving on heating.


Two or three years ago, Dixon had talked with academic departments about intersession and also created a task force to study and generate more interest. But interest has not increased.  So, Dixon argued,  there was no reason to keep Intersession.


Doing away with Intersession would have its downsides; Dixon cited unique Study Abroad classes that might not  work at the other end of the semester (i.e., in May). Dixon had asked Department Chairs if there were other problems; no one came back with any. The Provost said she would meet with Student Government, too, and schedule an open forum about it. The real intent, she said, was to eliminate Intersession unless we found something different.


By eliminating Intersession, we could move up the start of second semester somewhat. But Dixon argued that this was not a Calendar Committee issue. Lovett thought it would be good to check the Constitution, nonetheless, but ; Dixon reiterated that the Calendar Committee had had nothing to do with creating Intersession in the first place.


W. Gohlman noted that Spring Break would occur during the first two weeks of March. President Dahl pointed out that Commencement would no longer take place on Memorial Day Weekend.


J.  Zook asked how many students took Intersession courses. Dixon said that it was about 150-200 students. She had  also talked to AOP, since occasionally AOP students have needed a class during Intersession to help them with academic eligibility. But even AOP said that we did not need Intersession that desperately. Moreover, most of the Intersession Study Abroad Programs could move to just after the end of the semester. 


As for the actual dates of Spring Semester 2004, when the change would first occur, we could pick a date or start on a particular Monday. The absolute tolerable minimum, Dixon felt, would be two weeks between semesters, but it would probably be more than that.


Another purpose of eliminating Intersession, Dixon said, was to develop a more robust summer school.


M. Lynch thought that Intersession probably did allow graduating seniors to graduate on time in a way that Summer Session did not. The Provost disagreed.; students can sometimes finish during summer. Dahl thought graduation on time was somewhat loose as a concept; many education students chose to do their student teaching in their ninth semester, for instance. The change might disadvantage a few people, said the Provost, and the benefits for the College and for most students would be larger.


Dixon wanted to know if there were another group she should consul with; she also promised to remind Department Chairs.  She reminded Faculty to let their classes know there was a guaranteed list of courses for Summer Session.


Vice Chair’s Report

No report.


Past Chair’s Report

J. Lovett said the Ad Hoc Committee for Governance would meet this Friday. The first half of the semester will involve information gathering from past Chairs, learning about the history of the Committee on Committees, etc. After a four-week period to analyze and think about the information gathered, the Committee would create some recommendations by the end of the semester.


Bazzett said the Personnel Office had requests a full description of who is to vote in Fall and Spring Elections.  Dahl said airtight definitions of categories would eliminate time-consuming repetitions of eligibility determinations. 


Treasurer’s Report

M. Schmidt affirmed that one of her tasks was to send cards out to Faculty/Staff  in the hospital or to bereaved families. But she wondered if she should automatically send a $50 donation check even if she did not know the persons involved. Who decided these issues? Lovett and Freeman said this decision has been up to Treasurers in the past. Schmidt and Bazzett agreed they could consult as needed on future donations.


University Faculty Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman reported on several matters that arose from the recent Plenary Session of the University Senate.


Community Colleges and four-year schools were competing over General Education. SUNY wants four-year Colleges to accept Community College credit in the sense of finishing the General Education requirements. But members of the four-year units saw this as co-opting their general education programs. This was coming at a time when Community College tuition was increasing a lot less (even though they were also moving toward four-year programs in some circumstances; the Technical Colleges already are). Allied with this situation the Chancellor’s apparent endorsement of statewide assessments of General Education programs. Some members of The Board of Trustees are also pushing for this.  Four-year Colleges responded that they were already doing this, institution by institution.


Gohlman said he would make available a very good report of Rational Tuition Increase; Dahl suggested putting this on the Web, and Bazzett pointed out that the Senate Web Page now had a link to the University Faculty Senate Web Page. So Gohlman would be able to announce that people could just check the web address.


Central Council Report

  1. J. Lieberman said the first meeting of Central Council would occur tomorrow at 6.15PM in the Hunt Room.
  2. Central Council’s Business Affairs Director resigned recently, and Central Council was looking for someone new, with an appointment expected probably sometimes next week.
  3. Student Advocacy Day in Albany was scheduled tentatively for 6 March. Dahl said the President’s Office has reached the conclusion that there won’t be much of a SUNY Day; we might want to organize a Geneseo day, visiting representatives and others with a stake in the SUNY Budget.


Committee Reports

Faculty Affairs Committee Report 

No report.


Graduate Affairs Committee Report 

D. Metz said there would be a second reading on Accounting Program. The Committee would also disc changes in the Master’s Degree in Reading.


Policy Committee Report 

No report.


Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

Bazzett welcomed J. Zook (Psychology) as the new Committee Chair, replacing the retiring J. Bushnell. Zook said her Committee would meet this afternoon to ready a number of proposals for Senate next week.


Student Affairs Committee Report

M. Lynch said the Committee would meet on 18 February. They would discuss old business from last semester, in particular a proposal from the very end of the semester on pledging activities.


Old Business

There was no Old Business.

New Business

There was no New Business.



Chair Bazzett adjourned the meeting at 1.52PM.

Respectfully submitted,


Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary

Minutes of the College Senate

11 February 2003


Present: Anderson, D., Annala, C., Bailey, S., Bazzett, T., Bearden, J., Bonfiglio, R., Brainard, S., Buggie-Hunt, T., Cook, W., Cope, J., Cunningham, K., Dahl, C., Davies, K.,  Dingeldein, G., Dixon, B., Drake, G., Eisenberg, A., Freed, W., Freeman, C., Gifford, R., Gillin, E., Glass, B., Gohlman, B., Granger, D., Hartman, R., Hon, T., Johnson, D., Jones, K., Kirkwood, J., Klima, C., Kline, A., Lewis, J.,  Lynch, M., Mapes, K., Metz, D., Norris, D., Pogozelski, E., Pretzer, R., Schacht, P., Schmidt, M.E., Sheldon, A., Soffer, W., Stolee, M., Sullivan, D., Tang, C., Tang, J., Towsley, G., Welker, B., Woidat, C., Young, R., Zook, J., Esch, M., Colosi, J., Fratto, M., Nash, B., Dance, E., Lieberman, J., O'Neill, K., Passer, N., Principe, J., Remy, J., Rice, J., Sergio, J., Collins, J., Winkler, J., Wong, P., Zoller, L.


GUESTS:  Frisch, S., Howe, H., Zuckerman, M.E., Spicka, E., Hill, D., Fratticci, S., Pagliocca, R., Howard, B.


Call to Order

Chair Bazzett called the meeting to order at 4.03PM.


Adoption of the Agenda

The Senate adopted the agenda without corrections .


Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting (Senate Bulletin 9, December 2002, pp. 86-91) were approved unanimously (with correction noted from Senate Bulletin 19, January 2003, p. 93).


Senate Reports

President’s Report

President Dahl outlined the main aspects of the State Budget and how Geneseo would advocate in response to it.


The SUNY Board of Trustees had asked that the Governor maintain SUNY’s $1.859 billion instructional budget. This SUNY Budget submission was the first of many steps towards a final State Budget. The Governor’s Budget  retained the $1.859 billion. Dahl thought this good news since, in the past ten years, we have not usually gotten what we have asked for in the original Budget.


The SUNY Budget would face a cut of  $183.5 million in tax dollars; this would be balanced by increased tuition dollars (an expenditure authorized through an appropriation bill from the Legislature) of $196.9 million. As a result, SUNY would only get to spend what came from the proposed tuition increase of $1200.


Putting the Budget in context, Dahl admitted this was probably the worst State Budget year in four or five decades. The State was facing a $11.5 billion deficit. So this Budget would probably not do anything positive for anyone. Given those conditions, the maintenance of a “bottom line” Budget was better than other scenarios.


Dahl added that tuition had not risen for seven years. Yet we have been arguing for a “rational” tuition increase—one that would raise tuition gradually over the years. With an annual cost increase of 5.4% for public colleges, tuition should have increased by $1600-1800 by now. So, even with a $1200 increase, SUNY would lag behind universities in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and several other states with major public university systems. In fact, in combined tuition and fees, SUNY was now the lowest among all northeastern public institutions from Maryland to Maine.


Everyone in public higher education was facing a bad year; Dahl cited the $35 billion budget shortfall in California’s system. California, Maryland, and Massachusetts have already raised tuition in the middle of the year.


Dahl could see no feasible alternative to significant tuition increases if we were to make it through the next year at all. Certainly, asking for just the baseline Budget maintenance would be essential;, and at least this number was in the Governor’s Budget. The State could debate how to apportion this number between tax dollars and tuition. Also to be considered was the Budget for K-12 education. In any event, Dahl said he would be very surprised if we had a Budget before 1 August. 


If we were to get a flat Budget for next year, we would still have a half-million dollar shortfall in our local Budget. We have already had to cut from this year, though we have been able to handle that since we had tightened our expenditures last year and taken advantage of early retirement funds.


Moreover, the State Operations Budget was not the only bad news. The Governor’s Budget also proposed that the State withhold 1/3 of TAP awards to students until their graduation (within four years)—in effect, a loan. But this would only roll expenses into the next fiscal year(s) and would have disastrous effects on student access.


The Budget also proposed cutting EOP stipend money for buying books and other non-tuition expenses.


The only bright spot in the Budget was $2.6 billion for a 5-year capital program (the funds would come and were bonded for construction programs; $1.6 billion of this amount would go towards SUNY educational facilities.


On the tuition front, there would be some provisions for smaller increases—for instance, that would allow the Board of Trustees to raise tuition before a Budget is passed—that would move towards a rational tuition policy.


If the baseline Budget were maintained, we would have a relatively better situation than in the worst Budget year in recent memory. Things could be worse; but they were still bad.


Dahl outlined components of Geneseo’s advocacy for SUNY:


  • Maintain the baseline Budget combination of tax dollars and a tuition increase. 


  • Support full funding for TAP to make sure that access for low and middle-income students was not destroyed in the face of large tuition increases.


  • Continue EOP funding.


  • Support the capital program.


  • Support a rational tuition policy.


  • Look for additions for capital projects beyond the $1.6 billion to fund the renovation of Wayne Residence and equipment purchases for the Integrated Sciences Building.


Provost’s Report

  1. Provost Dixon said that we received the largest number of nominations ever for the Supported Professorships funded by the Geneseo Foundation. But low returns on investment this year meant that there no supported Professorships could be awarded this year. The Provost has contacted all of the nominees and said she would hold the applications until next year.

Meanwhile, Campus Awards for Mentoring and other categories were still in progress.


  1. The Provost said she would attend the Central Council Meeting tomorrow to discuss Intersession and its possible cancellation. The Provost recalled that most Faculty should have been able to discuss this proposal during Department meetings. Unfortunately, Intersession has not been a money-maker. If we canceled Intersession, this would mean moving up the start of the spring semester by a few weeks.


There would also be two open forums on Intersession on Thursday and Friday of next week; an All-College message would be coming out soon.


  1. For the first year ever, there would be guaranteed courses during Summer Session, no matter the enrollment. This should make it easier for students to plan.


Chair’s Report

Chair Bazzett congratulated the Teaching Learning Center (TLC) on its anniversary, calling the

celebrations fun and impressive. He praised Director B. Glass for a terrific job.


Bazzett welcomed and thanked new Senators.  J. Zook (Psychology) was replacing J. Bushnell (Library) as Chair of UCC. Also joining were W. Soffer (Philosophy) and K. Jones (Communicative Disorders and Sciences).


Geneseo hosted the University Senate Plenary Meeting in January. This was a very big event with a crowd that is tough to impress; but we impressed them. Bazzett thanked especially L. Wrubel (President’s Office) and Ginny Gear-Mentry (CAS).


Vice-Chair’s Report

C. Freeman gave the Senate a quick refresher in the electronic voting system.


Treasurer’s Report

M. Schmidt said that the Senate had donated $50 to the Wadsworth Library in memory of Professor Emeritus Jacques Chevalier.


University Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman reported on the recent University Senate meeting on our campus:


1. The most important development was the new Task Force on Rational Fiscal Policy. Gohlman affirmed that we did not want a decline in State tax revenues even as other revenues go up.


2. The SUNY Provost was very pleased in increased enrolment in SUNY, but we need to have funding that matches that increase.


3. The meeting of four-year Colleges dealt with the tuition increase that would probably send more students to Community Colleges for their first two years. Also, some Senators from four-year institutions were concerned that Community Colleges would be taking up more and more of our general education and even major programs. Some of the two-year schools in SUNY already had four-year programs.


4. Everyone was concerned about a possible statewide assessment of general education programs.

concern of all. The Chancellor had reversed his original position and seemed to favor standardized exams to assess General Education outcomes statewide. We pointed out that we already have assessment  programs, but we were concerned about how much interest the Board of Trustees seems to have in this; could this lead to standardized exams for majors? There was a suspicion that outside objective exams could do a better job of assessment.


Dahl explained that talk of tying funding to assessment came out of an Academic Standards Committee and only from the Chair of that Committee.


Central Council Report

1. J. Lieberman announced that, unfortunately, the Director of Business Affairs had to resign on 2 February; appointment is for Terry Gates who served on Central Council last year.


2. The Provost was  planning to come to Central Council’s discussion tomorrow.


3. The Student Association was planning its annual Budget Advocacy Day for 6 March. Activities would include letter writing and phone calls connected to the Budget.


4. There was to be a referendum on the SA Constitution to bring it in line with Board of Trustees provisions on mandatory fees.

At this point, Bazzett said there be a link from our own College Senate Web Page to the University Senate Web Page.


Reports of the Standing Committees


Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

Chair J. Zook said that the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee had met on 4 February. She presented motions on behalf of her Committee.


Second Readings (summaries in Bulletin 8):

Course Revisions

                Course Revision: PSYC 380 (p. 80). The motion carried unanimously.

                Course Revision: ANTH 323 (p. 80). The motion carried unanimously.


New Program

New Program: Honors Program in Studio Art (p. 80)

Discussion followed the motion. P. Schacht (English) called for an electronic vote on the motion.

He also expressed concerns about the proposal. Nowhere else in our curriculum did we have a distinct major that set such a high bar for admission (3.6 GPA). Yes, this was an Honors Track in Studio Art, but instead of the usual 39 hours; this called for 72 hours. Honors majors usually have marginally higher requirements than regular majors.


An unidentified member of the Art Department replied that the people substantially increased the number of classes that students had to take. This would not mean many students per year or increase the number of faculty needed. It would, however, increase the potential of students trying to get into an MFA program. Most students entering such graduate programs had BFAs.


Schacht replied that, if we wanted a BFA, it ought to be available to all students with a minimum of around 2.5. To introduce a fundamentally new major with high requirements did not seem to be fair or in the spirit of our offerings on the whole.


Provost Dixon explained that the high admissions bar was needed because of the quality of the studio art that students must produce to get into an MFA program.


Schacht said that, in our other programs, we gave students the opportunity to show what they could do and leave it to them to see if they could produce work that would get them into a graduate program.


The motion carried (Yes: 34; No 20; Abstain: 9).


First Reading (summaries in Bulletin 11)

New Course

New Course: MATH 380 (p. 100). The motion carried unanimously.

Course Deletion

Course Deletion: SOCL 285 (p. 100). The motion carried unanimously.

Concentration Revision

                Concentration Revision: SOCL Concentration (p. 100). The motion carried unanimously.

Course Revisions

The following Course Revisions were moved in groups by majors:

Course Revision: ANTH 202 (p. 100); ANTH 207 (p. 100); ANTH 211 (p. 100); ANTH 215 (p. 100); ANTH 229 (p. 100); and ANTH 310 (p. 101).

Course Revision: EDUC 215 (p. 101).

Course Revision: ECED 333 (p. 101) and ECED (p. 101).

Course Revision: COMN 363 (p. 101).

Course Revision: THEA 225 (p. 101); THEA 320 (p. 101); THEA 333 (p. 101); THEA 342 (p. 101); THEA 344 (p. 101); THEA 346 (p. 101); THEA 311 (p. 101); THEA 340 (p. 101); and THEA 330 (p. 101).


Each of the motions carried unanimously.


Policy Committee

No report


Graduate Academic Affairs Committee Report

D. Metz began by noting a change to the agenda. GAAC had sent Bazzett a series of course revisions for a new program but failed to get them into the Bulletin. So the first readings would take place at the next Senate meeting. Metz offered his apologies to the Senate.


Metz then moved the Second Readings of a New Course in Accounting, ACCT 502: Advanced Financial Accounting  (Bulletin, p. 70).


P. Schacht (English) said he was not sure if he was opposed to graduate courses in Accounting. He referred to the additional resources required for the courses as outlined in the Senate Bulletin, p. 100 (include another line, staffing of adjuncts to free up Faculty to teach new Graduate Courses, and other expenses), noting that the Senate had not had this information before it at the first reading. He wanted to give the School of Business an opportunity to explain this.


M. Zuckerman (School of Business) said that the School of Business had initiated a Masters of Accounting program because the State was now requiring 150 hours of coursework before permitting students to sit for State licensing in accounting. If we did not pass this or similar courses, our students would not be allowed to sit for the CPA. New York State, said Zuckerman, was behind in this requirement; other states had passed it already, driven by an accounting industry that wanted fuller education for its accountants. So the School of Business had concluded that a Master’s in Accounting focused at our undergraduate accounting majors (rather than an MBA) was needed.

In addition, the accounting field provided access into a professional field for many first-generation college students.


The feedback from accounting community was that our program was highly regarded, and students here had a liberal arts background, too, so they could write critically as well as have a good education in accounting. But without a Master’s in Accounting Program as an option, students might not choose to come here even for a four-year program.


Zuckerman also said that the School of Business had looked carefully at the resource issue. The State required us to have the Master’s in Accounting program in 2003. But students would not have to meet the new requirements in New York State till 2008. Thus, the State was mandating a five-year program with a fair amount of uncertainty. In response, the School of Business felt that, for the interim period, it could use adjuncts and replacement of old courses by new courses. Two courses would  be taught in the summer, too. Once the program had a full cohort, we would have students paying graduate tuition.  We will also actively seek outside funding.


B. Cook (History) raised several issues. He pointed out that the School of Education/ had experienced a number of changes in mandates. While we would like students to be able to stay here and complete master’s certification, we could not do that. Also, students could move elsewhere for their graduate  program. Cook also found it hard to believe we would have trouble recruiting students for accounting even if we did not have a fifth year. Moreover, he thought providing an extra line was difficult when we had committed ourselves to INTD 105 and beefed-up language requirement plus the Trustees’ mandates for American History, etc. Cook characterized this as a choice between good things. Finally, he did not think that the proposed courses in Accounting were necessarily part of the College Mission.


Zuckerman agreed that we were not experiencing good times. But we must be very clear: if we did not have a 150-hour program, we would lose students. Students would not come here for four years and go somewhere else for a fifth year. If we remained a four-year program, we would lose control over our own curriculum. We would have to tailor our curriculum to prepare students for the Master’s Program elsewhere. Yet the College Mission characterizes Geneseo as an undergraduate institution with selected master’s programs.


A. Kline (Admissions Office) offered her anecdotal experience: we have already received questions from prospective students concerned that we did not offer further study in Accounting.


H. Howe (School of Business) responded to another issue that Cook had raised—that students might come here and go elsewhere for their fifth year. From his work with New York State accounting societies, he felt that we would lose mentoring relationships between students and professionals if the former had to leave Geneseo after four years.


Cook reiterated that we had programs here that did not permit students to stay on and get certification. Yes, we wd lose prospective students, and that would be bad. But creating new graduate programs in departments that have none was something that we had not done in a long time; we still needed to think about the place we wished to become and how this would affect what we would decide in the future. Cook detected a habit of ad responses to some of these mandates from the State or even from initiatives within Geneseo.


J.Sergio (Student Senator) asked how this would affect students currently in the Accounting Program.


B. Howard (School of Business) said that students who graduated right now did not automatically fall under these requirements. 


E. Pogozelski (Physics) asked: if we voted today to approve an extra line, what would be cut in its place?

Provost Dixon explained that the vote had nothing to do with the extra line; money and resources were not the purview of the Senate.


M. Lynch (Psychology) asked where might funding might come from. The Provost said it was hard to say, since the full program would be in place by 2008. In the last few years, we have added faculty lines. But we did not know what the enrollment of majors or the Budget would be. That would determine requirements.


C. Woidat (English) asked: if students in the new program would automatically be able to sit the State exams, did that mean there were no alternatives but the Master’s Program? B.Howard (School of Business) replied that, technically, students could just present their courses to the State even if they had not majored in Accounting. But the chances of the State approving such an application were low. After 2004-05, however, this would indeed happen to students if we had only a four-year program. Some of our graduates look for jobs in other states. But Florida, for example, already had a 150-hour requirement and no longer reciprocated CPA licensing with New York State. By 2008, students would not be able to sit the exam without a 150-hour program. Cook asked whether these courses could still come from two different institutions? Howard agreed that they could. 


Chair Bazzett reminded the senate that the courses had to be approved before the program could be.


A. Eisenberg (Sociology) asked when courses actually had to be offered. Zuckerman said that courses would have to be on the books by 2004. If there were not enough students, we would work through directed studies.  Eisenberg thought that we needed to view professional program requirements differently from those for academic degrees. When the State mandated requirements for licensing or qualifying for jobs, there were different concerns, and so she thought this a reasonable proposal.


The motion carried.


Metz then moved the following additional new courses in Accounting, Economics, and Management separately:


ACCT 503: Strategic Management Accounting (p. 70)

ACCT 520: Advanced Auditing Theory (p. 71)

ACCT 530: Accounting Theory and Research (p. 71)

ECON 525: Managerial Economic Analysis (p. 71)

MGMT 500: Leadership in Organizations (p. 71)

MGMT 511: Financial Management (p. 71)

MGMT 522: Quantitative Analysis (p. 71)

MGMT 550: Information Systems Theory and Practice (p. 71)


Each of the motions carried.


Metz also moved the New Course, English 406/306: Writing for Teachers (p. 72). The motion carried unanimously


Metz then moved the following Course Revisions separately:


CDsc 541 Adult Language Disorders (p. 72)

CDSC 522 Neurogenic Speech Disorders (p. 72)

CDSC 445 Language Intervention with Persons with Severe Impairment (p. 72)


Each of these passed unanimously. 


Next, Metz moved the Program Revision for the Communicative Disorders and Sciences Program (p. 72). The motion carried unanimously.


After this came a motion for a New Program, MS in Accounting (p. 70 and p. 100).

B. Cook requested a vote using the electronic hand-held devices. The motion carried (Yes: 35; No: 11; Abstain: 6).


Metz said GAAC would meet again on 18 February/ during the All-College Hour.


Student Affairs Committee Report

M. Lynch said his Committee would be meeting next week.


Faculty Affairs Committee Report

No report.


Old Business

There was no old business.


New Business

At this point, Bazzett noted that some people thought that the upcoming Referendum on the War in Iraq was a Senate Referendum. Our Constitution stipulates that Faculty Referendums must pass through the Executive Committee.  Since the Executive Committee approved the referendum, the ballots were now in the mail. Voting would continue through 21 February. Bazzett urged Faculty to vote and to attend an open forum on the resolution next Tuesday during the All-College in Newton 202.


R. Pretzer (Photographic Services/College Advancement) asked what part of campus community is receiving ballot. Bazzett replied that the ballot was going to the General Faculty list.



Bazzett adjourned the Senate at 5.25PM.


Respectfully submitted,

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary


GAAC Minutes of December 18, 2002:

Members present; M. Chang, R. Gifford, J. Kirkwood, D. Metz (Chair), R. Spear, M. Sutherland; Visitors; D. Gordon, M. Rozalski, D. Showers.

D. Metz called the meeting to order at 10:30 am.  D. Showers and M. Rozalski gave a brief overview of the proposed changes to the M.S. Education: Special Education program that are designed to meet the changes in New York State Certification requirements.  Questions from GAAC members R. Spear, M. Chang, and Associate Provost Gordon regarding course sequences, class size, the elimination of the comprehensive examination at the end of the program, and faculty requirements were addressed satisfactorily by D. Showers and M. Rozalski.  Following this brief question/answer session, GAAC approved the program changes and course revisions unanimously. 

 I.      Rationale for Proposal

The revised M.S. in Education: Special Education program is designed to meet changes inNew York State certification requirements and better accommodate both full-time and part-time candidates pursuing advanced study in the areas of emotional disturbance/behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. The revised program is grounded in professional standards (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children, Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders), and is organized to meet requirements for accreditation by National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). In an effort to help candidates answer the call for increased accountability, the revised program will emphasize the importance of, and skills needed for making data-based instructional decisions. As such, the revised coursework will carefully develop the candidates’ understanding of, and ability to apply research-based classroom practices. Therefore, the existing culminating project, a 3-hour Master’s Comprehensive Examination, will be replaced by a course-bound, candidate-driven research-intervention project.

Course Revisions/Modifications

SPED 503: Special Education: Foundation and Legal Issues 

Description and Purpose:This course provides an overview of foundational issues and legislation impacting individuals with disabilities, their families, and various service providers. Candidates examine how federal, state, and local legislation, regulation, and litigation influence the development of educational programs. Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course by writing legally correct individualized education plans and research-based position papers.

SPED 504: Assessment and Program Evaluation

Description and Purpose: This course provides an overview of, and practice with both formal and informal types of assessments. Candidates will gain knowledge and skills to assess and evaluate individual students with disabilities, as well as programs that offer services to students with disabilities. Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course by developing effective individualized programs for students, and identifying how to make changes to increase the effectiveness of the overall program provided for students with disabilities.

EDUC 504: Educational Research Methodology

Description and Purpose: This course provides an overview of various methods of inquiry and the rationale for their respective use. Candidates are introduced to research methodology and statistics commonly used in the field of education, and will learn how to use the computer to conduct and present educational research. Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course by writing a literature review on a topic of interest, identifying a future research question, and outlining a proposed research study.

SPED 505: Transition in Educational and Community Settings

Description and Purpose: This course introduces the career and vocational features of individuals with disabilities across the lifespan. Candidates examine career/vocational that provide the means to become productive satisfied adults; effective collaboration between families, agencies, and service providers; and transition and career vocabulary development. Candidates are expected to apply skills necessary to broaden the educational choices of high school students and their families by creating career/transition plans.

SPED 506: Applied Behavior Analysis

Description and Purpose: This course provides an overview of advanced behavior management and research techniques, emphasizing the knowledge and skills needed to create effective behavior intervention projects for students with behavior problems. Candidates examine behavioral principles, procedures, and assessment methods necessary for course by developing a research proposal designed to improve a student’s problem behavior.

SPED 507: Seminar in Special Education

Description and Purpose: This course provides an opportunity for candidates to investigate and research the historical foundation and literature in their respective areas of study. Candidates will practice research and communication skills as they integrate new knowledge relevant to today’s public schools in an interdisciplinary perspective. Candidates are expected to apply their research abilities to identify one issue related to special education and conduct directed research activities and extensive discussion

SPED 515: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Characteristics

Description and Purpose: This course provides an overview of the nature, characteristics, and history of emotional disturbances and behavioral disorders. Candidates are introduced to various concepts, causal factors, and theoretical perspectives, as well as service delivery systems for working in an educational setting with children who have emotional disturbances and/or behavioral disorders. Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course by writing a brief literature review on a topic of interest and developing various classroom strategies designed to improve the social and academic performance of students with behavior problems.

SPED 516: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Interventions

Description and Purpose: This course provides educational strategies and intervention techniques suitable for students with behavior problems. Candidates are introduced to beginning behavior management techniques designed for use in a variety of educational settings. Candidates are expected to apply knowledge and skills developed in the course to conduct direct observation of students with behavior problem and design and carry out a behavioral intervention project.

SPED 525: Academic Strategies

Description and Purpose: This course provides an overview of research-validated academic strategies proven effective for students with disabilities. Candidates examine five specific content areas and means for integrating strategies across the disciplines, with an emphasis on practical application (e.g., providing concrete explanations and organizing materials). Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course to design and present an integrated strategy instruction project. 

SPED 541 Learning Disabilities: Characteristics

Description and Purpose: This course provides an overview of the nature, characteristics, and history of learning disabilities. Candidates are introduced to various concepts, causal factors, and theoretical perspectives, as well as service delivery systems for working in an educational setting with children who have learning disabilities. Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course by writing a brief literature review on a topic of interest and developing various classroom strategies designed to improve the social and academic performance of students with learning disabilities.

SPED 542: Learning Disabilities: Interventions

Description and Purpose: This course provides educational strategies and intervention techniques suitable for students with learning disabilities. Candidates are exposed to additional information about the nature of learning disabilities and are introduced to intervention techniques designed for use in a variety of educational settings. Candidates are expected to apply knowledge and skills developed in the course to develop a learning strategy and assess its ability to help a student with learning disabilities.

New Courses

SPED 525: Academic Strategies

Description and Purpose: This course provides an overview of research-validated academic strategies proven effective for students with disabilities. Candidates examine five specific content areas and means for integrating strategies across the disciplines, with an emphasis on practical application (e.g., providing concrete explanations and organizing materials). Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course  to design and present an integrated strategy instruction project. 

            SPED 590: Master’s Project: Design and Implementation

            Description and Purpose: This course provides an opportunity for candidates to apply content and research knowledge and skills learned throughout the program in a culminating research project. Candidates receive detailed instruction in project design and dissemination. Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course/program by carrying out a research project and preparing to disseminate the results.

            SPED591: Master’s Project: Dissemination

            Description and Purpose: This course provides an opportunity for candidates to apply content and research knowledge and skills learned throughout the program in a culminating research project. Candidates receive detailed instruction in project design and dissemination. Candidates are expected to apply skills developed in the course/program by disseminating the results of an action research project.