College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin No. 9
December 9th, 2002


Spring Senate Meeting Listing
Call for Nominations: Campus Awards
Fall Election Results
Minutes of the Executive Committee, 21 November, 2002
Minutes of the All-College Meeting, 3 December, 2002
Minutes of the College Senate Meeting, 3 December, 2002


Happy Holidays… Enjoy your break!

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.

· February 11th

· March 11th - Preceded by the All College Meeting

· April 8th

· May 6th

Call for Nominations:

Campus Awards
Two Foundation Supported Professorships
Presidents Award for Excellence in Academic Advising
President's Award for Excellence in Part-Time Teaching
President's Award for Excellence in Research and Creative Endeavors
Carol Harter Mentoring Award

Nominations for all of the above listed awards will be accepted from faculty, staff and students, and should consist of a narrative of no more than two pages describing the nominee’s fulfillment of the criteria specific to each award..

Nominations should be submitted to the Campus Awards Selection Committee, c/o Provost’s Office, Erwin 205, by 4:15 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2002.

Eligibility and criteria requirements as well as past recipients are listed in Bulletin 7.

Fall Election Results:

Congratulations to the following faculty members who were elected in the fall elections to serve on the

Faculty Personnel Committee:

· Gary Towsley

· Daniel Strang

· David Geiger

· Celia Easton

Congratulations to the following faculty members who were elected in the fall elections to serve on the

Nominations Committee

· Rachel Hall

· Melissa Sutherland

· Jasmine Tang

Thank you to all those who accepted nominations for these positions and to all of those who voted in this election.


Executive Committee Minutes

21 November 2002

Present: T. Bazzett (Chair), J. Bushnell, C. Dahl, B. Dixon, G. Drake, C. Freeman, W. Gohlman, J. Lovett, M. Lynch, M. Schmidt.

Chair Bazzett called the meeting to order at 12.50PM.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting (29 October 2002, Bulletin 6, pp. 52-55) were approved without corrections.


Chair's Report

Chair Bazzett said the electronic voting had been going well. Once again, he thanked CIT’s M. Stopha, who helped make this possible. Voting would end 4PM on Friday. Lovett asked whether Bazzett would be sending out a reminder today? Bazzett said he would do this via FACULTY-L. He also said that the results would be announced at the next Senate meeting.

President's Report

1. C. Dahl reported that we did not know very much about the current status of the State Budget. He thought it was probably too late for a budget cut in this fiscal year—and beyond the point for a mid-year hike in tuition. Dahl said that the College was clear about its own budget priorities, including tuition flexibility. The College’s budget for the expansion of Greene Building was going out for consideration, and an artist’s rendition of the project would be appearing in places such as Erwin and the Library.

2. Although the Entrance Park /Parking Lot Project would not be finished before the end of the semester, there would be landscaping work and the filling in of a hole caused by a coal-tar problem. The people who would normally park behind Brodie should be able to go back there. There would eventually be metered and rented spaces.

J. Lovett asked if the same number of free spaces be available in the parking lot as before. The President replied that, due to legally mandated striping requirements, we would lose about 3-4 free spaces.

Provost's Report

1.The Provost noted that all of the Campus Awards categories were listed in the Bulletin. She urged the Committee to lobby colleagues for nominations.

2. The Provost also discussed a new vision for Summer Session. The College would new plan to guarantee a core number of classes, centered around General Education and Core Requirements. We have not settled on an exact model yet, but Associate Provost S. Padalino was developing one based on a “break-even” point of student enrollment necessary for a class; there would also be additional stipends beyond a certain threshold of enrollment. This would be in keeping with a desire to have regular Faculty rather than adjuncts teaching Summer School.

The Provost added that we were also planning to advertise at all of the Comprehensive College Student Newspapers.

W. Gohlman thought that, in the long run, it would be good if we knew about Summer Session during the previous Fall term. The Provost said she eventually wanted to develop a three-year rotation so that students would know what to expect during the Summer Sessions during their time in Geneseo.

M, Schmidt asked if there would be the summer sessions would continue to have the same durations. For now, the Provost said. Lynch wondered whether, with a focus on Core, major courses would not be offered. The Provost replied that we would guarantee Core Courses and perhaps also some other classes in high time demand. But we could not guarantee a non-prorated salary for major courses that enrolled below the “break-even” point. We were trying to be more purposeful about summer School by having a mission for it. The President agreed that, with more flexibility and time, we could offer more types of courses. The Provost also noted that Summer Sessions were not based on State monies and came out of an entirely different system.

Bushnell asked whether later summer courses for would be available for school teachers. The Provost thought this likely, though the College had not discussed all the possible combinations of sessions.

M. Lynch said his Department liked the idea of guaranteed summer school classes but not moving the spring semester earlier; Provost regarded this as a separate issue from guaranteed courses, though students have been expressing dislike for the long break between semesters. Intersession has not been very robust—it was not making much money. Lovett wondered about having a short period in the beginning of summer, and the Provost thought this was still possible.

Vice Chair’s Report

Vice-Chair Freeman said the Excellence Awards Committee was busy reviewing nominations for the Chancellor’s Excellence Awards.

Past Chair’s Report

J. Lovett announced that the Governance Committee finally had all its members. She was only waiting to get one student’s email address. She hoped to hold a meeting before the end of the semester.

Treasurer’s Report

On behalf of the Senate, M. Schmidt sent out a sympathy card and a $50 donation in memory of Charlie Moon.

University Faculty Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman reported that he was working on the meeting of the University Faculty Senate here in January. Mailings should be going out to Senators soon about matters such as hotel reservations etc.

Central Council Report
No report

Committee Reports

Faculty Affairs Committee Report

No report.

Graduate Affairs Report

No report.

Policy Committee Report

No report.

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

J. Bushnell said that UCC had convened on Tuesday for its final meeting of the semester. The Committee approved two Course Revisions and a new Honors B.A. in Art Studio.

Student Affairs Committee Report

1. M. Lynch said his Committee had last met on Tuesday. It had made progress with CAS concerning service hours. Lynch commended the responsiveness of new director, Ed Abbott.

2. The Committee was continuing to develop ideas for additional education opportunities for student on sexual assault and drug abuse; perhaps this could be done through some sort of freshman seminars. maybe through frosh seminars. Steve Burwood from Dean’s Office had came over and said the Dean is willing to work with the Committee re: preregistration issues. Provost thought that, within Central Council at least, this might be more appropriate in the Academic Affairs Committee within Central Council, but the President did note that SAC had the loosest charge.

The Executive Committee further discussed some preregistration issues. The Provost said the Dean’s Office is extraordinary in helping students graduate on time.

Old Business

There was no old business.

New Business

There was no new business.

Chair Bazzett adjourned the meeting at 1.35PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary

Minutes of the All-College Meeting

Newton 204

3 December 2002

Call to Order

Chair Bazzett called the meeting to order at 4.05PM.

Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved without additions or corrections.

Report on the College Budget

Vice-President for Administration K. Levison reported on the structure of Geneseo’s 2002-2003 Budget.

He began by explaining that, since Geneseo is not a private college, its budget consists of five categories of funding that are not always interchangeable:

· State Purposes—the base of the Budget, deriving from State tax dollars and tuition and fees.

· University-Wide Funds—allocated to us from SUNY on a year-by-year basis.

· Income Fund Reimbursable (IFR)—operations that bring in their own revenues.

· Dormitory IFR (DIFR)—derived from legislation and bond covenants, and are totally separate from other funding.

· Other Related Funds—a miscellaneous group.

This year’s current State Purposes budget of $33,712.80 includes instruction, salary increases, temporary services, library acquisitions, and utilities; but utilities have moved temporarily to the IFR Budget to respond to cuts in State tax revenue. Tuition fees and other campus revenues amount to about $20 million

Levison compared the changes over the last few years in this part of the College Budget. A reporter had suggested to Levison that the State contribution was only down 7/10 of a percent. In realty, our text revenues decreased by 5%. We actually had to deal with large amounts of unfunded requirements, such as negotiated salary increases, that we did not receive funding for.

Nearly 60% of our budget comes from our own revenues, not State revenue sources.

University-wide allocations, meanwhile, are made from a special part of the appropriations bill for such items as EOP, computer access and fellowships such as the Empire State Scholarships.

As for IFRs, Levison explained how the College had many operations that functioned as little businesses, including OAP, athletics, the Health Center, Physical Plant, Research Grants, and the CIT Wireless Program. These accounts have to pay fringe benefits for any personnel on their budget; such fringe benefits amount to 33% of their costs. On the State Purposes budget, the State pays for fringe benefits.

We expend about $6.7million in IFRs and take in about $7.9 million of the same. Again, Levison emphasized, these are not State-supported. So IFRs produce a modest surplus for equipment replacement and other College purposes.

Unlike the IFRs, Dormitory DIFRs are totally self-sufficient and separate for building debt retirement and management. This Budget is $10.6 million, all largely from room charges.

All told, the State Operations portion of the College Budget amounts to 27% of a total $52.7 million Geneseo, he noted, was largely self-sufficient.

Finally, to this would be added (were we a private institution) a number of other related expenses, such as debt service on buildings, fringe benefits, CAS, Geneseo Foundation funds, and various scholarships and fellowships.

In the IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) a reporting system for all public and private college budgets (the only database comparing allocations of money between private and public institutions), our total Budget amounts to $87, 292, 000, of which the State funds 37%. So media claims of the State’s beneficence, Levison believed, were overstated. University Centers receive more; Cornell’s Veterinary School, for instance, gets 90% of its Budget from State support.

Bushnell asked Levison to explain this discrepancy. Levison replied that the Allocation Model (which has had various names, including BAP, and, before that, RAM) was based on level of instruction, cost of instruction (including high-tech instruction), differentials for hiring costs in different regions in the State, amount of research, amount of public service, etc. The SUNY Center at Buffalo, for instance, is doing tens of millions of dollars in research; Cornell does major public service.

President Dahl added that allocation models in higher education systems were “rational” economic models in the 19th-century sense, but also politically influenced. The previous model of allocation changed from a complex forty cells on a spreadsheet to a simpler twelve cells. Yet, due to disputes and politicking in larger institutions, this model also (in effect) ratified distribution patterns that favored graduate institutions over undergraduate institutions—even though the latter are much better at generating certain important revenues.

Levison next considered whether State Purposes allocations to various parts of the College had changed over five years. He held that percentages of allocations had changed negligibly over this time period. He pointed out that Student and Campus Life looked as if it had had reduced funding; however, University Police and Admissions were actually moved out of Student and Campus life to their own budgetary entries. In any event, Student Services were funded almost 80% through IFRs and DIFRs. Academic Affairs, by contrast, receives more from State Purposes because it has far fewer IFRs.

Having presented the structure of the Budget, Levison continued to stresses on the Budget in 2002-03. To start with, $1.1 million in contractual salary increases were not funded by the State. Also, lower interest earnings had created a $73,000 shortfall. Other stress included a required 1% reduction at the beginning of the year, amounting to $147,000; and internal reallocations of $155,000. These budget stresses created a total deficit of $1.5 million.

To deal with this situation, the College took a 1% base cut; increased the Technology Fee; reduced Temporary Services (non-instructional services, mostly student employees); spread a general reduction of $177,00 among all components of the College; found savings in utilities; moved $110,000 of recruitment expenses to Foundation funding; and increased the overhead charge to IFRs (moved more utilities to IFRs).

The stresses were not over, Levison cautioned, and he talked about future challenges to the Budget. He recalled the halcyon days of 1996-2001, when State revenues grew from between 3% to over 10%. This was also a time when the State was cutting taxes. Although the State managed to reserve $3 billion during that time, only $710 million was left.

A large factor in this loss came from the disaster of September 11th 2001, when the State lost revenues estimated between $4.5 and 8 billion. The financial sector would normally pay $40 billion in bonuses, which translated into income tax dollars for State. This income has dried up. Furthermore, because of debt reform, the State can no longer use bonds to minimize its deficits.

State Senate Leader Bruno was forecasting a $2.5 billion shortfall in 2002-03. The State would try to deal with this by delaying cash payments till the beginning of the next fiscal year; they would also delay payments to hospitals till July. But this would simply move the cash problem into the following year.

In addition to the $2.5 billion shortfall, current estimates suggested a gap of $6-8 billion for the 2003-04 Budget. Since the State Operations Budget was $40 billion, this represented a huge gap with implications for school aid and social services.

The State has already notified us that we would need to reduce expenditures for the remainder of the year by 5%; for us this meant $323,700. We would plan to do this by deleting 3 ½ vacant positions in Personnel and Facility Services and by using institutional cash reserves which we have built up (thanks to stringent expenditure controls since last December. But next year’s Budget would make this cut permanent. We could expect a further reduction beyond that 5%. This would mean at least a three-year problem.

Meanwhile, we still had our own gap of $545,000. Utility costs must be reduced by 150K; scholarships were increasing by $70,000; a UUP 1% DSI hike, amounting to $155,00, was due on 1 July 2003. There was also the matter of annualization: i.e., raises given part-way through this year would have to be paid for over the full twelve months in subsequent years; this amounted to $170,000.

Recalling that the State would reduce our campus Budget by 5% (or $650,000), our minimum Budget problem for the next year would be $1.195 million, or 3.8% of our Budget. As a state tax problem, this would really be a 9.2% revenue problem.

Levison explained that we were dealing with this problem by reducing discretionary expenditures, making available early retirements, and hiring slowly and only to critical positions. But he thought it too early to tell how much tuition would come into play in next year’s budgetary process.

Dahl added that we needed to be thinking about both revenues we could generate and cuts that might be made. Change in tuition revenues would probably be needed to make up some of the shortfalls. These would be political issues. It would be unrealistic to allow identical tuition each year without raises. He hoped that the tuition increase would not just fill in holes in the State Budget but allow for flexibility in how we determined tuition levels in a given year. This would also bring the State University into line with the tuition practices of most public institutions. Moreover, Dahl stressed, access was a great goal in higher education, but access to something inferior and shoddy was not in the public interest. He acknowledged that all of us have been careful with expenditures, yet this only could work to a limited extent; other changes in revenue and tuition were needed. Tuition policy was tied too closely to certain sets of legislative decisions; we needed to move to a place in which we could make tuition decisions as a University system.

Levison said we were not funded based upon enrollment or workload alone; our State, unlike others, failed to recognize that we were increasing enrollment with a basically flat State revenue stream. The State had also taken any new revenues and appropriated it into a place in the Budget where it was not readily visible. Levison echoed the need for a rational tuition policy.

In a piece of pointed jocularity amid the encircling gloom, Dahl suggested that the State Budget was not like stone soup but soup thinned into a dismal gruel.


Chair Bazzett adjourned the meeting at 5PM.

Minutes of the College Senate

Newton 204

3 December 2002

Present: D. Anderson; C. Annala; S. Bailey; T. Bazzett; J. Bearden; T. Book; S. Brainard; T. Buggie-Hunt; J. Bushnell; W. Cook; J. Cope; K. Cunningham; C. Dahl; K. Davies; G. Dingeldein; B. Dixon; G. Drake; C. Freeman; C. Geiger; R. Gifford; E. Gillin; G. Gouvernet; D. Granger; L. Hall; K. Hannam; R. Hartman; A. Hatton; A. Herman; D. Johnson; J. Kirkwood; A. Kline; K. Levison; M. Lima??; M. Lynch; D. McPherson; D. Metz; J. Over; E. Pogozelski; R. Pretzer; S. Salmon; E. Savellos; P. Schacht; M. Schmidt; A. Sheldon; R. Spear; A. Stanley; M. Stolee; D. Sullivan; C. Tang; J. Tang; G. Towsley; A. Weibel; B. Welker; C. Woidat; R. Young; J. Zook; A. Conklin; J. Colosi; M. Fratto; J. Garvey; A. Hassid; J. Lieberman; K. O’Neill; N. Passer; J. Principe; J. Remy; J. Rice; J. Sergio; J. Winkler; P. Wong; L. Zoller.

Guests: K. Anne; E. Beary; J. Boiani; W. Cotton; K. Fletcher; S. Frisch; J. Haley; D. Hill; B. Howard; H. Howe; M. Jadlos; K. Kallio; S. Landes; P. Maclean; T. MacPherson; M. Nitsche; P. Pacheco; R. Pagliocca; D. Repinski; E. Rivenburgh; E. Spicka; M. Teres; J. Thorne; K. Trainor; M. Zuckerman.

Call to Order

Chair Bazzett called the meeting to order at 5.01PM.

Adoption of the Agenda

The agenda was adopted without corrections or additions.

Approval of the Minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting (Bulletin 7, pp. 66-69) were approved without corrections or additions.

Senate Reports

President’s Report

No report.

Provost’s Report

The Provost wished good luck to students in upcoming exams and patience to the Faculty during the same period.

Chair’s Report

1. Chair Bazzett presented the fall election results:

For College Personnel Committee: G. Towsley (Mathematics), D. Strang (School of Business), D. Geiger (Chemistry), C. Easton (English).

For Nominations Committee: R. Hall (English), M. Sutherland (Mathematics), J. Tang (Foreign Languages).

2. Bazzett reported that J. Bushnell (Library) had decided to take advantage of early retirement. He said he did not know of anyone more actively involved with Senate, and he lamented the loss of a great College resource. He wished her well, and the Senate offered Bushnell a hearty round of applause.

Vice-Chair’s Report

No report

Treasurer’s Report

No report.

University Senator’s Report

No report.

Central Council Report

1. J. Lieberman reported that the last Student Association business meeting would be this Wednesday, 4 December at 6.15PM in the Hunt Room.

2. Lieberman also reported that students could now reserve their seats on the vacation buses and the airport shuttle for the semester break.

3. SA President Jen Putorti, SA Director of Inter-Residence Affects Jim Rogers, SA Director of Programs, Personnel and Finance Kate Rebban joined Lieberman at the recent 46th annual National Conference on Student Services in Orlando. The conference was a great experience with a variety of workshops dealing with issues such as leadership, team-building, and diversity.

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

J. Bushnell made the following motions on behalf of her Committee:

Second Readings (summaries in Bulletin 6):

Revision of a Major Program:

· Program Revision: B.A. in Computer Science (p. 56). The motion passed unanimously.

· Program Revision: B.A. in Biology and B.S. in Biology (P. 56). The motion passed unanimously

· Program Revision: B.A. in Chemistry (p. 58); B.S. in Chemistry: American Chemical Society

Certified (p. 58); B.S. in Chemistry: American Chemical Society Certified: Biochemistry Option (p.59). The motion passed unanimously.

· Program Revision: B.S. Adolescence Certification (7-12) in Chemistry and General Science (p. 59). The motion passed unanimously.

New Courses:

(Bushnell noted that BIOL 302 was actually BIOL 304.)

· New course: BCHM 393 (p. 56). The motion passed unanimously.

· New course: BIOL 128 (p. 57) and BIOL 302 (p. 57). The motion passed unanimously.

· New course: ENGL 406/306 (p. 57). The motion passed unanimously.

· New course: CHEM 100 (p. 57) and CHEM 352 (p. 57). The motion passed unanimously.

Course Revisions:

· Course Revision: CHEM 340 (p. 58) and CHEM 351 (p. 58). The motion passed unanimously.

First Readings (summaries in Bulletin 8)

Course Revisions:

· Course Revision: PSYC 380 (p. 79). The motion passed unanimously.

· Course Revision: ANTH 323 (pp. 79-80). The motion passed unanimously.

New Program:

· New Program: Honors Program in Studio Art (p. 80). The motion passed unanimously.

Bushnell thanked the Committee members for their work and the Dean’s Office for its help.

Policy Committee Report

No report

Graduate Affairs Committee Report

D. Metz offered the following motions for his Committee:

First Reading (summaries in Bulletin 7):

New Courses:

· New Courses: ACCT 502: Advanced Financial Accounting (p. 70), ACCT 503: Strategic Management Accounting (p. 70), ACCT 520: Advanced Auditing Theory (p. 71), and ACCT 530: Accounting Theory and Research (p. 71). The motion passed.

· New Courses: MGMT 500: Leadership in Organizations (p. 71), MGMT 511: Financial Management (p. 71), MGMT 522: Quantitative Analysis (p. 71), and MGMT 550: Information Systems Theory and Practice (p. 71). The motion passed.

· New Course: ECON 525: Managerial Economy Analysis (p. 71). The motion passed.

New Program:

· New Program: M.S. in Accounting (p. 70). The motion passed.

Course Revisions:

· Course Revision: CDSc 541: Adult Language Disorders (p. 72). The motion passed unanimously.

· Course Revision: CDSc 522: Neurogenic Speech Disorders (p. 72). The motion passed unanimously.

· Course Revision: CDSc 445: Language Intervention with Persons with Severe Impairment (p. 72). The motion passed unanimously.

New Course:

· English 406/306: Writing for Teachers (p. 72). The motion passed unanimously.

Program Revision:

· Program Revision: Communicative Disorders and Sciences Program (p. 72). The motion passed unanimously.

Metz referred Senators to the minutes on p. 77 of the Bulletin.

Faculty Affairs Committee Report

No report.

Old Business

There was no old business.

New Business

Bazzett said that the schedule for Senate next semester would be coming out in the Bulletin soon.


Bazzett adjourned the meeting at 5.13PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary