College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin No. 16
April 28th, 2003


Spring Senate Meeting Date
Senate Office Election - Results
More Spring Election News
Applications for Professional Leave
Statement on Community and Diversity

Senate Resolution Opposing System-wide Assessment
Minutes of the College Senate Meeting - 8 April, 2003
Minutes of the Executive Committee - 1 April, 2003



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.

·         May 6th


Elections for Senate Offices

The following nominees were elected to serve as Senate Officers for the 2003-2004 year.  Thank you to all who participated in the election and congratulations to our newly elected officers.


Vice Chair                              Senator-at-Large (over 6 years)         Senator-at-Large (under 6 years)

Gregg Hartvigsen                 Olympia Nicodemi                                Kristina Hannam

Edward Gillin                                         Helen Myers

Secretary                               Roseanne Hartman                              David Granger

Zhiming Zhao                       James Boiani

                                                Harold Hoops

Treasurer                               Savitri Iyer

Errol Putnam                         Sonja Landes


More Spring Election News

Upcoming Elections for General Education and Professional Leave Review Committees

Elections for new members of the General Education Committee and the Professional Leave Review Committee will be held the last week of regularly scheduled classes.  The election will utilize electronic voting similar to the previous two elections.  Ballots should be arriving in the mailboxes of Teaching Faculty within the week.


Applications for Professional Leave

September 15, 2003 Deadline for applicants to submit Sabbatical Leave Requests for the 2004-2005 Academic Year to departments

October 15, 2003 Departments submit recommendations of 2004-2005 Sabbatical Leave Requests to Provost for review by Professional Leave Review Committee

December 2, 2003 Provost submits recommendations for 2004-2005 Sabbatical Leave Requests to President's Office

*Due dates which fall on a weekend shall automatically be effective the following Monday.


In accordance with the Constitution, the Professional Leave Review Committee is charged with publishing the criteria by which they evaluate applications. Here is their statement:


"Sabbatical leave proposals are evaluated on the following criteria: clarity of presentation of proposed objectives (including schedule and planned outcomes), potential contribution of the project to teaching or professional stature, necessity for leave, and evidence of productivity in prior leaves or ongoing scholarly activity. See the Guidelines for the Submission of Proposals for Sabbatical Leaves for further detail and clarification."


The Guidelines for Submission of Proposals for Sabbatical Leaves and Sabbatical Leave Applications can be found under "Forms" on the Office of the Provost's website.


Statement on Community and Diversity

The President, working in consultation with the Commission on Diversity and Community, has asked that the Senate review and approve the following statement on community and diversity for Geneseo.  A motion to bring this statement to the Senate was unanimously approved by the Senate Executive Committee at the last meeting of the year.  The statement will be used as a basis for communicating Geneseo's commitment to community and diversity and will be included in a variety of publications associated with promoting our college including the Geneseo web site, the Undergraduate Bulletin, and new student recruiting materials to name a few.

Statement on Community and Diversity


Geneseo holds among its core values the ideals of community and diversity.


Our community is defined as a group of faculty, students and staff who live and work together at Geneseo because they share common goals that are based on the ideals of higher education rooted in the liberal arts.


Although they share common goals, the members of the Geneseo community also differ in many ways.  Diversity at Geneseo is defined in part as differences in individuals that are manifested in their race, ethnicity, national origin, language heritage, world-view, religion, sexual orientation, class, physical ability, learning style, geographic background, mental health, age, and relationship status.


Geneseo recognizes that each individual who comprises our diverse community brings to it unique perspectives and knowledge that contribute to its richness and vibrancy.


Because Geneseo also holds educational excellence among its core values, it recognizes that its progress as a community toward such excellence is predicated on its ability to grow in its capacity to embrace the diversity of its members and the interplay among them that leads to the academic and personal growth of all.


Geneseo calls all members of our community to share responsibility for the ongoing work of recreating a sense of inclusion, belonging, and empowerment, so that together we will achieve our individual and collective aims, and experience the intellectual liberation that is at the heart of the educational enterprise.


President's Commission on

Diversity and Community

Spring Term 2003


Senate Resolution Opposing System-wide Assessment

My sincere and continued thanks to Paul Schacht for crafting and editing the new Geneseo Resolution on University-Wide assessment.  Paul presented an initial draft that was received with overwhelming positive response.  The Executive Committee, in reviewing that initial draft, asked if two minor points could be addressed.  Specifically if the statement denouncing use of system-wide assessment as a method of comparison among campuses could be changed so that it could in no way be interpreted as an opposition to accountability.  Second, it was suggested that a statement be added for the purpose of personalizing the resolution for Geneseo (the inclusion of a reference to our Mission statement was suggested).  Below is the edited version of this resolution. I will ask that the Senate vote on this resolution in our final Senate meeting of the year.


Geneseo Resolution on University-Wide Assessment


WHEREAS: The faculty of SUNY Geneseo have adopted a campus assessment plan designed, in accordance with the College mission, to sustain and advance excellence in all aspects of teaching and learning; and


WHEREAS: The Report of the Provost’s Advisory Task Force on the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (November 2000) declared that “The SUNY Assessment Initiative must respect the diversity that exists among SUNY institutions, especially their unique missions”; and


WHEREAS: The Report further declared that “Performance funding should not be linked to the absolute level of the results of campus-based or University-wide assessment, or to direct comparisons among campuses”; and


WHEREAS: The use of standardized tests for University-wide assessment would show grave disrespect for institutional diversity and uniqueness by measuring all student learning by means alien to the processes and purposes of each and every campus; and


WHEREAS: The use of standardized tests for University-wide assessment would also undermine fundamental principles of academic excellence by discouraging pedagogical creativity and innovation while encouraging mass-produced instruction narrowly tailored to mass-produced assessment instruments; and


WHEREAS:  Any system of performance funding tied to assessment results would defeat the fundamental purpose of assessment, which is not to rationalize allocation of scarce resources but to sustain and advance excellence in teaching and learning;


THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:  That the faculty of SUNY Geneseo condemn any use of standardized testing in University-wide assessment; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the faculty of SUNY Geneseo condemn any use of University-wide assessment to determine funding for individual campuses.



Minutes of the College Senate Meeting

8 APRIL 2003

Newton 204


D. Anderson, C. Annala, S. Bailey, P. Barber, T. Bazzett, M. Chang, W. Cook, J. Cope, G. Dingeldein, G. Drake, A, Eisenberg, C. Freeman, R. Gifford, E. Gillin, W. Gohlman, D. Granger, R. Hartman, A. Herman, T. Hon, D. Johnson, K. Levison, J. Lewis, M. Lima, M. Lynch, D. Metz, J. Over, R. Pretzer, S. Salmon, E. Savellos, P. Schacht, M.E. Schmidt, A. Sheldon, W. Soffer, R. Spear, C. Rowley, R. McEwen, A. Stanley, M. Stolee, D. Sullivan, M. Sutherland, C. Tahng, J. Tang, A. Weibel, B. Welker, C. Woidat, R. Young, J. Zook; Students: M. Esch, J. Colosi, M. Fratto, B. Nash, E. Dance, J. Lieberman, K. O'Neill, N. Passer, J. Principe, J. Rice, J. Collins, J. Winkler, P. Wong.

GUESTS:  S. Frisch,  R. Goeckel, D. Gordon, D. Henderson, B. Howard, D. Showers, E. Spicka, M.E. Zuckerman

Call to Order

Chair Bazzett called the meeting to order at 4.01PM.


Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was adopted without additions or corrections.


Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting (Bulletin 14, pp. 137-42) were approved without corrections.


Senate Reports

President’s Report

Chair Bazzett reported for President Dahl who was in Washington in search of federal funding for SUNY. In one or two days, Dahl would appoint an Acting Provost; he was also putting together a Search Committee for next Provost. He had no new SUNY Budget news to report.


Provost’s Report

No report.


Chair’s Report

1.Bazzett spent part of the weekend at the University Faculty Senate Plenary Meeting at Cornell. J. Hildreth was reelected as President of the University Faculty Senate.


There was nothing new about the Budget. But the University Senate was becoming concerned over the suggestion of SUNY system-wide assessment from the Board of Trustees. At least two and perhaps three Trustees were advocating this. But the Senate thought such assessment disheartening after all campuses had created campus–wide assessments that they had not even begun to collect data for. The Board of Trustees may have been putting pressure on Chancellor King and the SUNY Provost to pursue system-wide assessment.


Furthermore, the University Senate had no sense of what kind of test could be given for General Education requirements for all campuses. And what would SUNY do with the results? Would they be confidential or public?


There was also the concern of academic freedom. The Board had said we could create our own general education courses to meet the Board’s requirements, but now we would have a mandated standardized test to somehow assess all of these different courses.


Bazzett presented a resolution opposing System-Wide Assessment that had been drafted largely from resolutions passed by SUNY Fredonia and SUNY Potsdam


A motion to approve the resolution was made and seconded.


P. Schacht (English) thought that this resolution addressed some of the concerns that the General Education Committee had had when an earlier version of a similar resolution had been considered for the Policy Committee. Schacht noticed a new aspect of the present version: the “whereas” clauses in this version  emphasized differences in campuses and adequate funding, whereas the Potsdam version that we once looked at emphasized academic freedom and integrity and other matters that seemed more important to the central issues than funding. P. Schacht preferred that the current resolution address those “non-funding” issues.


Bazzett explained that Fredonia had originated the current resolution, heeding the University Faculty Senate’s advice against the “aggressiveness” of the Potsdam resolution. Bazzett said he would have liked to have more input about thing; but part of the concern was that changes seem to happen at SUNY Central during the summer. Bazzett did say he would gladly change the wording to reflect Schacht’s concern, though this would delay the process.


Bazzett suggested some additional “whereas” clauses, which Schacht thought important. Schacht noted that this was yet another issue of tying funding to assessment results. He thought this would be less likely to happen than actually having standardized testing for assessment purposes.


K. Levison (Vice-President for Administration) felt it was difficult to engage in “wordsmithing” on floor of the Senate. He noted that there was still another Senate meeting before the end of the semester, and suggested sending the resolution to an appropriate Senate Committee for drafting. Bazzett agreed with Levison’s suggestion.


Bazzett replied that he was happy to turn this resolution over to another body for editing.


One Senator asked whether funding had to be in the resolution at all. Bazzett explained that the University Senate had been concerned that we had not even received funding for previous mandates associated with General Education changes.


W. Gohlman (History, University Faculty Senator) moved to refer the matter to the Executive Committee. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Bazzett asked for feedback from Senators.


2. Bazzett also presented a website,, run by a group called the Global Education Network. SUNY students could now take General Education courses through distance learning. The College Senate was concerned about this and was not yet sure how to respond. Two courses offered so far were history and a calculus course. 


S. Bailey (Dean of the College) said that this service was targeted to SUNY as a cheap alternative since tuition was rising. She also noted that Hudson Valley Community College was sponsoring this, so she thought that the University Senate ought to talk to the two-year colleges organization. Bazzett added that the University Senate had had no knowledge that this was coming along. It had also turned up as an advertisement in campus newspapers.


Gohlman said that last spring at University Senate we had told the SUNY Provost that this idea was academically indefensible, and the Provost agreed. And now we had


Dean Bailey said that any student interested in taking a course like this would have to have it approved by the Dean’s Office. Bazzett asked whether we would have to honor a course if it represented a SUNY General Education Requirement. Bailey replied that we were under some obligation to do so but that we reviewed such courses on a case-by-case basis.


3. Bazzett added that the University Faculty Senate had urged its Senators to encourage Presidents and Provosts to speak out about and oppose system-wide assessment.


Vice Chair’s Report

No report.


Treasurer’s Report

No report.


University Faculty Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman reported that R. Miller from System Administration said we should try to convince the Board of Trustees that system-wide assessment was not a good idea.


Bazzett said we were also being asked to give evidence of the adequacy and usefulness of our own assessment programs. Moreover, some campuses were seeing their own campus assessment programs as providing useful information but did not see how system-wide assessment would be useful.


Central Council Report

1. J. Lieberman reported that spring elections for campus-wide offices would be held on 21 and 22 April. Open positions included the seven Central Council Offices, class officers, and a State Student Assembly Representative. A CAS Representative would be appointed later.

2. The Intergreek Council was planning and end-of-the-year Faculty/Staff/Intergreek mixer for Tuesday, 6 May during the All-College Hour. It would most likely be held at the Corner Pocket in the College Union.


Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

J. Zook presented a number of resolutions for the Senate’s approval.


First Readings (Summaries in Bulletin 14)

New Course

ENGL 242: Literature of the African (p. 150)

M. Lima (English) corrected the course title to “Literature of the African Diaspora.”

The motion passed unanimously.

CDSC 201: Oral Communication Lab for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 150) -The motion passed unanimously.

CDSC 243: Fluency Intervention (p. 150) -The motion passed unanimously.

CDSC 244: Voice Intervention (p. 151) - The motion passed unanimously.

ENGL 332: Early American Literature (p. 153) -The motion passed unanimously.

ANTH 396: Teaching Practicum in Anthropology  (p. 153)- The motion passed unanimously.

ANTH 325: International Fieldwork: (region) (p. 153) - The motion passed unanimously.

MGMT 268: Management Law and New Technologies (p. 153) - The motion passed unanimously.

GEOG 365: The Geography of Islam (p. 153) - The motion passed unanimously.

MATH 228: Calculus II for Biologists (p. 153) - The motion passed unanimously.

BIOL202: Biological Issues (p. 153) - The motion passed unanimously.

BIOL 264: Human Physiology (p. 153) - The motion passed unanimously.

BIOL 305: Conservation Biology (p. 154) - The motion passed unanimously.


Course Revisions

THEA 260: Theater Practicum (p. 149) - The motion passed unanimously.

CDSC 100: Functional Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 151) -The motion passed unanimously.

CDSC 200: Oral Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 151)

    S. Bailey expressed concern about raising the number of ESL credits that could be applied to a degree and announced that she would review the issue. She thought that p a limit of twelve hours in both writing and oral courses might be the right amount, but she asked people to discuss the issue.

   M. Lima asked what the nature of the concern was. Bailey explained that, since these were repeated courses used towards the degree, we needed to consider a limit.

The motion passed unanimously.
CDSC 300: Advanced Oral Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 151) - The motion  passed unanimously.

CDSC 238: Clinical Observation and Management in Communicative Disorders (p. 152) - The motion passed unanimously.

CDSC 240: Language Intervention (p. 152) - The motion passed unanimously.

CSCI 241: Principles of Computer Organization (p. 152) - The motion passed unanimously.

CSCI 242: Analysis of Algorithms (p. 152) - The motion passed unanimously.

BIOL 306: Evolutionary Biology (p. 154) - The motion passed unanimously.

PLSC 228: Title “Politics in the Third World to Developing Third World Politics” (p. 154)

An unidentified Senator noted that the course title should read “Developing World Politics”; the name in

   the Bulletin was incorrect. With this correction, the motion passed unanimously.

Dance 240: Stage Movement—Change prefix to THEA 240 (p. 154) -The motion passed unanimously.


Course Deletions

CDSC 202: Remediation of Speech, Language, and Hearing Disorders (p. 151) - The motion passed unanimously.

CDSC 368: Advanced Speech Science (p. 151) - The motion passed unanimously.

MGMT 261: Legal Environment of the Economy (p. 154) - The motion passed unanimously.


Revisions of Majors

Black Studies (p. 149) - The motion passed unanimously.

Communicative Disorders and Sciences (p. 150) - The motion passed unanimously.

Speech and Hearing Handicapped (p. 150) - The motion passed unanimously.

International Relations (p. 152) - The motion passed unanimously.

Business Administration (p. 152) - The motion passed unanimously.

Biology (p. 152) - The motion passed unanimously.


Revision of a Minor

Africana Studies (p. 150) - The motion passed unanimously.


Revision of a Concentration

History (p. 150) - The motion passed unanimously.




Policy Committee Report

1. On behalf of the Policy Committee, E. Gillin moved the adoption of the revised version of a Proposal to Revise Academic Policy Appeal Review of Grades (Bulletin 14, pp. 144-46).


Gillin noted that the motion addressed two principal matters.


First, the existing policy statement was rather vague as to the grounds for considering a course grade unfair. He said that a major component of the revision offered some broad guidelines for assessing this.


Second, there was also a structural strangeness about the existing grade appeal statement. Much of it is given over to a numbered, step-by-step sequence of appeals that appeared to be a progressive process. There was a sense of anticlimactic “letdown”, therefore, when one learned that none of those numbered steps made the instructor’s initial judgment any less binding. This factor itself was unavoidable; it was built into our contractual language that individual instructors must be the ultimo arbiters of their students’ grades. So, the revision addressed the “perception” problem by de-emphasizing the appeals process per se, and also made the point about an instructor’s prerogative over grades part of the opening, as well as a closing, statement.

The motion passed unanimously.


2. Next, Gillin moved a proposal by the School of Education to revise requirements for admission and student teaching (Senate Bulletin, pp. 146-47).

D. Showers (Head, School of Education) noted three matters related to the motion:


Requirements for accreditation and registration by State of New York, which had exceed the requirements to get into the College. Originally 2.5 (2.0 for most majors).


The issue of alignment. After programs got put in place, the School of Education looked at comparable SUNY College requirements. We found that we had the lowest requirements of any other College. 2.75 would be more in line with these Colleges.


Resources. There was an unintended consequence of the 1999 change in regulations. The number of students seeking certification had grown tremendously over the past seven years (from 1100 students to 1600 students). In that same period, we have had the same number of Faculty allocated. To fill the gap required to fill the extra work, the School of Education has had to hire a large number of adjunct Faculty, mostly for teaching supervision. Also, cooperating teachers who have been supervising our student teachers have received  $200 stipends, so the additional students resulted in $50,000 beyond what we had been in 1996 on stipends. Additionally, we have had to search for more places to put students. In the Rochester area, six colleges were seeking 10,000 places for student teaching. This amounted to a tremendous burden on the public schools. In some parts of the curriculum—Secondary Social Studies and English and Childhood Education—there was an even greater strain.


This was why the School of Education wanted to charge the requirements for Student Teaching.


Showers then presented the proposal:

The School of Education proposes the following changes to admission to its programs:

Early Childhood, Childhood, and Childhood Special Education majors and Adolescent Certification  candidates:


Students must have a 2.75 GPA after a minimum of 30 hours at Geneseo OR 3.0 Transfer GPA at the time of entry to Geneseo.


Students may appeal the admission requirements by sending a letter to the Director of the School of Education. The Director will convene a three-member panel of program faculty to review appeals.


Requirements  for Student Teaching:

The School of Education proposes the following changes to admission to Student Teaching:


Admission to Student Teaching requires a 2.75 GPA overall in the major and in the concentration for majors. AD Candidates must have a 2.75 overall, in the major, and in the certification courses *


If a student’s GPA drops below 2.75 after admission to an education  program, (s)he will have one semester to bring it above 2.75 or be suspended from Education course work until the GPA meets the requirement. Students suspended from Education course work will receive a letter notifying them of their status and the process to appeal.


*INTD 203, EDUC 204, EDUC 215, SPED 205, subject methods courses (INTD 300, INTD 301, INTD 302, FORL 320 as required by the student’s specific program.

Implementation notes:

The requirements described above will apply to freshmen admitted to the College as of fall 2003 and to transfer students admitted to the College beginning in Fall 2004.


The process of Admissions will be as follows:

1.        Geneseo students apply to the programs or file appeals.

2.        Admissions, including appeal admits, are determined.

3.        The remaining number of seats is determined through discussion.

4.        Admissions is notified.

5.        Transfers are offered admission.

6.        The School of Education application will include a statement that IF a student wishes, (s)he may indicate a 2nd choice program to which (s)he would accept admission  if the first choice program to which (s)he would accept admission is not available. Applicants would also be allowed to indicate a 3d choice.


All students will be notified at the time of admission that they are admitted to a specific program. If they are in one program and wish to transfer to a different program, they must compete for admission with other candidates who apply in the same semester. Students who completed service learning at one level and apply to a different level will have to do a new service learning project.


W. Cook (History) asked representatives of the College Administration: if you had fewer students in your programs—if there were fewer students taking Education—would there be more students taking History or Physics? What would this mean for resources?


S. Bailey (Dean of the College) said replied that yes, the Administration was looking at this. For elementary level programs, we would be encouraging students to look at majors in the concentrations so that it could result in the shift of students to other programs. She reinforced about the numbers that we did need to act decisively to reduce numbers in the programs. She was not satisfied that 2.75 would do this. We might have to raise GPA or add a system of caps. The higher number of students was increasing costs of adjuncts and stipends.


Cook then addressed Showers. In regard to the Adolescent Social Studies Program, Cook noted a huge grade distribution among majors—some departments gave 12% A’s, some 40%. Would this be considered in the appeals process? Showers agreed and said he would make the appropriate parties aware.


P. Schacht relayed that the Policy Committee saw in this proposal a motivation to reduce enrollment and another motivation about standards. Did the School of Education consider making 2.75 not only an admissions requirement and not only a minimum requirement for Student Teaching but also a graduation requirement?  Would it make sense to do so since this is also a question about standards?


Showers said School of Education did not look at that specifically; he would like to look at the numbers before addressing it. He said he would be a bit concerned about having a hurdle at the end of the Program. He also observed that this was  already in effect a graduation requirement since Student Teaching usually came in the very last semester.


Schacht then asked how many do it in last semester as opposed to second-to-last?


S. Salmon (School of Education) thought it was about half; Showers agreed.


Schacht pointed out that the College had a minimum GPA for graduation. If they got to the last semester, students could retake courses or take additional courses to bring the grade point average up. Thus, Schacht did not think having a graduation GPA requirement would be a real obstacle. He then asked if the School of Education would be willing to consider this between the First and Second Readings. Showers said that this was a multi-step process requiring further adjustments, so they could consider  Schacht’s suggestion.


R. McEwen (Foreign Languages) asked what the requirements were in Graduate Programs in the School of Education? Was the SOE considering revising those as well?


Showers replied that had to review those as well.


Bazzett suggested a single vote on both proposals.

The motion passed unanimously.


Graduate Affairs Committee Report

D. Metz made the following motions on behalf of his Committee:

Second Reading (Bulletins 12 and 13):

Course Revisions/Modifications:

SPED 503: Special Education: Foundation and Legal Issues (p. 115)

SPED 504: Assessment and Program Evaluation (p. 116)

EDUC 504: Educational Research Methodology (p. 116)

SPED 505: Transition in Educational and Community Settings (p. 116)

SPED 506: Applied Behavior Analysis (p. 116)

SPED 507: Seminar in Special Education (p. 116)

SPED 515: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Characteristics (p. 116)

SPED 516: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Interventions (p. 116)

SPED 525: Academic Strategies (p. 117)

SPED 541: Learning Disabilities: Characteristics (p. 117)

SPED 542: Learning Disabilities: Interventions (p. 117)

The motion passed unanimously.


New Courses

SPED 525: Academic Strategies (p. 117)

SPED 590: Master’s Project: Design and Implementation (p. 117)

SPED 591: Master’s Project: Dissemination (p. 117)

The motion passed unanimously.


Program Revision

Revised M.S. in Education: Special Education Program (p. 115)

The motion passed unanimously.


Revised Course Descriptions

CURR 436: Teaching Young Adult Literature (p. 129)

CURR 438: Teaching Literature, Birth Through Sixth Grade (p. 130)

CURR 440: Content Area Reading/Literacy in the Secondary School (p. 130)

CURR 479: Computers and Technology in Reading/Language Arts: Workshop (p. 130)

CURR 510: Foundations of Literacy Education (p. 130)

CURR 512: Diagnosis and Assessment in Reading and Literacy: Early Childhood and Childhood (p. 130)

CURR 517: Advanced Clinical Experience in Reading/Literacy (p. 131)

CURR 520: Teaching of Reading for Secondary, College and Adult Students (p. 131)

EDUC 522: Diagnosis and Assessment in Reading and Literacy: Middle Childhood and Adolescent (p. 131)

CURR 530: Language Arts Methods for the Elementary School (p. 131)

CURR 535: Action Research in Reading and Literacy (p. 131)

The motion passed unanimously. 

New Courses

CURR 513: Practicum: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Readers: (Early Childhood OR Childhood OR Middle Childhood OR Adolescent) (p. 131)

CURR 514: Reading and Literacy Learning in a Diverse Society (p. 132)

The motion passed unanimously.

 New Programs

M.S. in Education: Teaching of Reading and Literacy, Birth through Grade 6 (p. 127)

M.S. in Education: Teacher of Reading and Literacy, Grade 5 to Adult (p. 128)

The motion passed unanimously.


Student Affairs Committee Report

M. Lynch reported that, next Tuesday, a subcommittee of the Student Affairs Committee would host a meeting to explore new educational opportunities promoting student health and safety. He invited Senators to participate.


Faculty Affairs Committee Report

R. Hartman informed the Senate of the meeting held on 18 March; the minutes appeared on pp. 147-48 of the Bulletin. She reminded Senators to note time changes for Student Registration.


Old Business

There was no old business.


New Business

There was no new business.



Chair Bazzett adjourned the Senate at 5.02PM.


Respectfully submitted,

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary


Executive Committee Minutes

22 April 2003

South Hall 209

Present: T. Bazzett (Chair), C. Dahl, B. Dixon, G. Drake, C. Freeman, E. Gillin, W. Gohlman, R. Hartman, J. Lovett, M. Lynch, D. Metz, J. Zook.


Call to Order

Chair Bazzett called the meeting to order at 12.52


Adoption of the Agenda

The agenda was adopted without corrections.


Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting (Bulletin 15, pp. 158-161) were approved unanimously.



Chair’s Report

Bazzett said that all the nominees from the Senate Elections have been contacted; the results would appear in the Bulletin.


President’s Report

1. President Dahl said that he was monitoring the Budget situation in Albany. It seemed that the Legislature would restore TAP but would have trouble lowering the tuition increase. Dahl recommended any contact with legislators on Budget issues, adding the message that if legislators lowered tuition, SUNY would need funding restoration from taxes. But nothing in the Budget was set in stone yet, though Dahl speculated that the Budget process would conclude by mid-May.


Dahl noted that the College Council’s political advocacy committee has been making personal visits to legislators.


In addition, Dahl reported a recent reception on campus with local legislators to discuss Budget issues. The Alumni Board and Parents’ Council have also been involved.


Former Chair J. Lovett asked Dahl if anyone was speaking with downstate legislators, since we had a large student base there. Dahl affirmed that this was happening. Aiding the cause were data showing how many SUNY students lived in  each legislative district.


2. Dahl then reported on a recent visit to Washington. Geneseo was seeking federal funding for a large amount of scientific equipment, so Dahl visited the four Rochester-area members of Congress. The new equipment would be useful for natural and social sciences. There would be a new computer plus a microscope for materials sciences. Dahl also said he was preparing the way for $2 million of equipment for the new Science Building.


3. Dahl announced that Associate Provost D. Gordon would serve as Interim Provost upon Provost Dixon’s departure.  Susan Bailey would move from being Interim Dean of the College to Dean of the College. These positions, Dahl felt, would provide stability in a period of change.


The President said that the Faculty Committee on Administrative Appointments would be convening to search for a new Provost. This Committee has usually consisted of eight members, four of them Teaching Faculty, plus the University Faculty Senator, the Chair of the University Senate, and two Administrative Faculty (one Management Confidential and one UUP-Professional). Central Council would select student representatives.


As in the previous Provost or Vice-Presidential searches, Dahl would be looking at the composition of the Committee, and if it needed balancing, he might add a member to those listed above.


4. Dahl presented the revised draft of the College’s Statement on Diversity. He asked the Executive Committee to grant the Commission and the College Administration the chance to present this to Senate for discussion and endorsement. He also solicited comments or suggestions from the Executive Committee.


W. Gohlman moved endorsing the statement and putting it on the next Senate agenda. The motion was seconded and  passed unanimously.


Provost’s Report

1. The Provost announced that open discussions were beginning about Summer Sessions. Discussions will consider how we might expand Summer Session given the longer summer period. No final decisions would be made until the College had an opportunity to discuss these issues.


2. The Provost planned to consider the question about whether to replace D. Gordon’s Associate Provost position. Dahl affirmed that the functions of the office would be covered.


3. Dixon was scheduling interviews to replace the retiring J. McNally’s position; there was a good group of candidates. There was also a search for to reply S. Spring, who was retiring as Director of Scheduling and Campus Events.


Dahl added that we had a number of retirees in middle management still doing their jobs. We were also replacing D. Lackey and S. Andrews, yet they have been in the office five days a week. The Humanities Resources search had five finalists out of close to a hundred applicants. Dahl speculated that cuts to universities and private industries and hospitals might have made the Director of Human Resources position an appealing one.


The Provost said we had called J. McNally back to do a major survey comparing ourselves to other SUNY Institutions.


Vice-Chair’s Report

No report.


Former Chair’s Report

J. Lovett reported that the Governance Committee has continued to meet. They were discussing officers’ terms and duties. The Committee thought that each position should have a handbook beyond the bare outlines of the Constitution.


Treasurer’s Report

M. Schmidt reported donations of $390 to the Senate Fund; she was still collecting money.


The Provost asked whether the Senate sent flowers to Faculty who were ill; she mentioned a few Faculty might like to receive flowers. Bazzett thought we should make people aware of these funds.


Committee Reports

University Faculty Senator’s Report

No report.


Faculty Affairs Committee Report

No report.


Graduate Affairs Committee Report

No report.


Policy Committee Report

No report.


Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

J. Zook said that UCC would group readings by major at the next Senate meeting.


Student Affairs Committee Report

M. Lynch’s Committee had its final meeting on student health and safety last week. The Committee expressed interest in a proposed educational opportunities for health and safety and desires to maximize them, especially for new students. Dahl asked whether  SAC would like to join the SUNY-mandated Personal Safety Committee on its annual Safety Walk. The Committee walks all over Campus, starting at about 8PM, to see if lights were on, whether blue lights were needed, etc. Safety improvements have come out of this annual event. Lynch thought members of SAC would be interested in this event. Dahl said he would ask the Chair of the Personal Safety Committee to give information to SAC. Lovett added that the former Chair of the Personal Safety Committee thought there should be some connections between similar Committees; Lynch agreed. Bazzett asked for the date of the Safety Walk;  Dahl said he would check.


Old Business

There was no old business.


New Business

1. Bazzett reported that we were having trouble finding candidates for the General Education and Professional Review Committees. In response, The Executive Committee discussed how to encourage Departments to send more representatives. The Provost thought we should remind people about the need for representation and a voice. Bazzett noted some Departments already have significant administrative duties.


There was no candidate yet for College Senate Secretary. Z Zhao's name had appeared on the Senate ballot for Secretary and Senator-at-Large, but he declined both positions. Nominations Committee Chair A. Eisenberg had tried very hard to find a candidate; Bazzett has also extended the offer to those who did not win in their categories.     


Senate Secretary G. Drake said he would talk to one possible candidate; J. Lovett said she would consider the position if no one else would. J. Zook wondered if Executive Committee members could share the responsibility, as Senate Committees do now. Drake stressed the need for continuity, and other Committee members felt Senate minutes should maintain a consistent voice.


Bazzett noted that other SUNY Colleges offer a stipend or a course reduction for Senate Secretaries. Drake compared the job to an extra course preparation.


W. Gohlman suggested that the College Senate Secretary could collaborate with a professional secretary from the Administration; we had done this in the past. Dahl pointed out that in the ensuing years, word processing had developed, so the notes a Secretary might take had to be closer to the finished product.


Bazzett thought that there were enough ballots to run a vote for the General Education and Professional Review Committees during the first or second week of May.


2. Bazzett has sent out a call for nominations for the Roark Awards and has received strong nominations. He said he would send out notices today to ask students to submit their materials. Bazzett asked whether it would be acceptable to send each Executive Committee Member a packet. The Committee agreed. Bazzett then asked if it was also acceptable to get a rank ordering over email as a starting point? Lovett said that, in the past, we had mostly made the materials available to Executive Committee members, and then those who had read the materials would attend the meeting to determine the winner. She noted that one year the Senate gave a double award.


Bazzett regretted that he could not attend graduation to award the Roark, but C. Freeman has agreed to do this.


3. Bazzett presented a resolution opposing system-wide assessment. Schacht had sent some suggestions along with a draft. Bazzett said that this would return to Senate from the Executive Committee as a revised resolution.


Lovett and Gohlman noted some minor word and spelling changes. E. Gillin asked if there were any substantial recommendations for changes. Bazzett said that there had not been.


Lynch felt the second paragraph implied we might be afraid of accountability, which was the rationale behind university assessment. He asked if we could just remove the paragraph. Gohlman liked the paragraph’s quote from the Advisory Task Force’s Report. Zook asked if the original intent for University-wide assessment was to compare campuses? Lovett said it was. Zook also thought the second paragraph was unnecessary. Gillin sympathized with Gohlman’s point, but he noted Schacht’s intent in his advisory email. Gillin further thought the resolution needed the stamp of Geneseo’s own commitment to excellence. Provost remembered the meaning of the phrase “publicly compare;” it meant not so much comparisons within SUNY but the rest of the country.


Bazzett confessed sympathy to both sides of the discussion. He liked the idea of using the Task Force report quotes in the first “whereas” clause, yet he was concerned about the second paragraph. If we were to say the intent of system-wide assessment was to punish, the Trustees could respond negatively. Bazzett said he would talk further with Schacht about this paragraph and ask for help in adding some language about Geneseo’s distinctives.


Lovett asked whether the memorandum had brought to the Committee could be referenced here; Dahl agreed. Schmidt asked in regard to the second paragraph: didn’t we already publicly compare when we printed SOFI ratings in the Lamron? We made these kind of public disclosures already.  Lovett replied that the “we” in this case would refer to student editors, but Dahl said that the SOFIs were matters of public record. The Provost explained that, since we do not have enough data yet, we have not made any assessment results public.


For a Geneseo distinctive, Zook thought it would be good to quote the College Mission Statement.


Bazzett said that the University Senate had raised concerns about public comparisons. Different campuses had different goals and missions, so comparison was not really possible.


The Committee’s consensus was to take this statement, with revisions, to the next Senate meeting.


Departments have been notified to get their Senators in.


4. Finally, Bazzett thanked all the Executive Committee members for their efforts. He remarked that he had always enjoyed Executive Committee meetings. Thanks to everyone involved, they always ran smoothly. The Committee, in turn, thanked Bazzett for his work.



Bazzett adjourned the meeting at 1.39PM.


Respectfully submitted,

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary