College Senate Website

Bulletin No. 17

Pages 333-345

19 April 2002



Page    Topic

333      Contents


334            Spring 2002 College Senate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule

334            Senate Bulletin Mailing List

334            Appointment to the Standing Committees of the University Faculty Senate

335            General Education Assessment Plan

335            Spring Election Results

336      Minutes of the College Senate Meeting, 9 April 2002

343      Minutes of the Graduate Academic Affairs Committee






                  Correspondence:  Janice A. Lovett, Department of Biology,

                  Bailey 210; e-mail:; phone: 245-5413




Spring 2002 College Senate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule


         April 23   Executive Committee Meeting

         April 30   Last 2001-2002 College Senate Meeting

         April 30   First 2002-2003 College Senate Meeting


Senate Bulletin Mailing List

Any member of the College Community may receive an individual copy of the College Senate Bulletin. If you would like to receive a copy please send your name as you would like it to appear on the mailing label and your campus address to the Senate Chair, Janice Lovett, or 210 Bailey.


Appointment to the Standing Committees of the University Faculty Senate

The University Faculty Senate is requesting interested faculty and professional staff apply for appointment to the Standing Committees of the University Faculty Senate. While the campus has a University Faculty Senator (William Gohlman) there is the opportunity for other members of the campus to participate in the University Faculty Senate as members of the Standing Committees. Appointments are for one year and committees meet three to four times during the year. The Standing Committees and their charges are:


Governance Committee - The Committee will concern itself with University-wide Governance and provide guidance on matters of campus governance. The committee shall interact with local governance leaders of the University.


Graduate Academic Programs and Research Committee - The Committee will serve as a source of professional advice and guidance to the Senate on matters relating to the quality, operation, and encouragement of graduate programs and research. To these ends, the Committee may be concerned with the procedures, criteria, and support of existing and new graduate programs within the University. The Committee may review and recommend policies and procedures relating to moral and ethical concerns of research and graduate studies and other matters involving support and furtherance of research and graduate studies in the University. Current topics: Arrange a panel discussion on “Impact of Funding Sources on the Direction of Research.” Finalize a Guide to Faculty Orientation Programs.


Public Information Committee - The Committee shall develop and implement a consistent program of advocacy for the State University of New York on a state-wide and regional basis to various publics, including but not limited to - students, parents, alumni, faculty and staff, media, government, the private sector and trustees of the State University.


Student Life Committee - The Committee will be concerned with significant educational, developmental, social, cultural and recreational policies, programs, issues and services that affect the quality of student life and the campus environment of the State University of New York.



Undergradaute Academic Programs and Policies Committee - The Committee shall provide advice and guidance to the Faculty Senate on matters relating to undergradaute programs and policies throughout the University. To these ends, the Committee may review such areas as existing and proposed curricula, standards for academic degrees, undergraduate academic assessment, teaching techniques and evaluation, special undergraduate programs, articulation among units of the State University of New York and the various aspects of international education and development. Current topics: articulation and transfer, student internships, and international education.


University Operations Committee - The Committee shall be concerned with the effective participation of the professional staff in University personnel policies including equal employment practices and affirmative action. The Committee shall also be concerned with the development and administration of the budgetary and planning activities of the University, and to provide advice and guidance on matters relating to the libraries, computing and telecommunications. Upcoming projects: Investigate the relative sizes of the Administrative and Instructional budgets for the State Assisted campuses; retention and recruitment of faculty; distance learning.


University Programs and Awards Committee - The Committee will concern itself with the enhancement of intercampus educational and scholarly interests of the faculty through the development and strengthening of University-wide programs, grants, and awards. Current topics revision of the Faculty Exchange Scholars Program and review of Distinguished Service and Distinguished Teaching Professorship guidelines and criteria. Review of Conferences in the Discipline proposals.


Application forms may be obtained from either William Gohlman (Sturges 313, X5735, or Janice Lovett (Bailey 210, X5413,


General Education Assessment Plan

The completed General Education Assessment Plan submitted to SUNY Central Administration can be viewed at The preliminary plan was printed in Bulletin 11, p. 188-191 and a first reading was voted on during the Feb. 5, 2002 Senate meeting (p. 209-210). A second reading of the General Education Assessment Plan will be on the agenda of the April 30, 2002 Senate meeting.


Spring College Senate Election Results


Elected candidates are in bold.


Vice Chair

         Charles Freeman 108               Maria Lima  66



         Maryellen Schmidt 145            Charles Freeman 12



         Graham Drake 162



Professional Leave Review Committee

         David Geiger 71                        D. Jeffrey Over 44

         Carlo Filice 74                           Kenneth Asher 40

         Ray Lougeay 102


General Education Committee

         Kathleen Jones 106

         Kurt Fletcher 55                        Olympia Nicodemi 41               Duane McPherson 19


Senators-at-Large (over six years of service)

         Judith Bushnell 92

         Margaret Stolee 88

         D. Jeffrey Over 71

         James Bearden 68

         Cynthia Klima 65

         Richard Young 55

         Elias Savellos 50

         Anthony Macula 43


Senators-at-Large (under six years of service)

         H. Christina Geiger 44

         Jasmine Tang 27 (winner by coin toss)

         Michael Oberg 27

         James McLean 26

         Yanxiang Gu 21

         Patricia Barber 15

         Maryellen Schmidt 13

         Eric Helms 12

         Itekhab Alam 9


Professional Leave Review Committee Amendments

         Amendment 1 accept 157 reject 1

         Amendment 2 accept 147 reject 15

         Amendment 3 accept 124 reject 11

         Amendment 4 accept 148 reject 21

         Amendment 5 accept 153 reject 8

         Amendment 6 accept 156 reject 7



Minutes of the College Senate Meeting

9 April 2002

Newton 204


Present: D. Anderson; K. Bajdas; J. Ballard; T. Book; J Bushnell; J. Curran; C. Dahl; G. Dingeldein; B. Dixon; G. Drake; M. Dunn; C. Filice; W. Freed; C. Freeman; E. Gillin; B. Glass; W. Gohlman; G. Gouvernet;  D. Granger; T. Greenfield; A. Gu; E. Hall; C. Harte; R. Hartman; A. Hatton; D. Hill; T. Hon; H. Hoops; H. Howe; M. Jensen; D. Johnson; J. Kirkwood; A. Kline; J. Lewis; J. Lieberman; Liu, J.;   B. Lofquist; J. Lovett; T. Macula; S. McKenna; J. McLean; D. McPherson; J. Morse; J. Mounts; R. O’Donnell; P. Pacheco; J. Principe; M. Putman; K. Rank; J. Remy; J. Rogers; S. Salmon; P. Schacht; A. Sheldon; R. Spear; A. Stanley; M. Stolee; L. Taczak; C. Tang; R. Vasiliev; C. Whalen; E. Whitcomb; C. Wixson; C. Woidat; J. Zook


Guests: S. Bailey; N. Duxbury; S. Frisch; R. Pretzer; D. Showers



Call to Order

Chair Lovett called the Senate to order at 4.06PM.                             


Adoption of the Agenda

D. Metz pointed out that the third item on the portion of the agenda with GAAC’s motions should be the Second Reading of a Revised Program rather than the first.


Vasiliev also noted that “Report’s” on the meeting agenda should have no apostrophe.


With these changes, the Senate adopted the agenda unanimously.


Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings

The minutes of the previous meeting (Bulletin 14,  pp. 270-73) were adopted unanimously without amendments.


Senate Reports


Provost’s Report

Provost Dixon said that Professor Becky Glass (Sociology) had been serving as interim Director of the Teaching Learning Center. The TLC would be offering several workshops at the end of the semester; Dixon urged Faculty to take advantage of them.


Chair’s Report

1. Chair Lovett reported that Senate balloting was underway. Ballots will be due by 2PM on Friday and should be returned either to Department Secretaries or to the ballot box in Erwin.


2. Students nominated for the Roark Award would be receiving letters soon asking for materials in support of their nominations.


Vice Chair’s Report

No report.


Treasurer’s Report

Treasurer C. Freeman reported that the College Senate Fund drive is still in progress.  So far, Senate had received 28 donations for a total of $720—an average of $25.71 per pledge.  Freeman said that the Senate was still accepting donations; contributors to either the College Senate Fund or Roark Award Fund should send checks made out to the Geneseo Foundation/College Senate Fund to Charlie Freeman in Greene 202.


University Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman announced that the next meeting of the University Senate would take place at Alfred State on 12 April.


Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate


Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

J. Bushnell made the following motions on her Committee’s behalf.


UCC moved the first readings of the following course revisions:


ANTH 310 (Bulletin 15, p. 280, 281)

ANTH 321 (Bulletin 15, p. 280, 282)


These course revisions passed unanimously.


Next, UCC moved the first readings of the following new courses:


ACCT 315/MGMT 315 (Bulletin 15, p. 279, Bulletin 16, p. 319-322)

ANTH 335 (Bulletin 15, p. 279, 382-385)

ARTH 310 (Bulletin 15, p. 292, 298-300)

 ARTH 386 (Bulletin 15, p. 293, 301-304)

 INTD 210 (Bulletin 15, p. 293-294, 305-306)

WRIT 201 (Bulletin 15, p. 279-280, 286-287)


All of these passed unanimously.


UCC also moved the first reading of several program revisions:


Economics Minor (Bulletin 15, p. 281, 282)

Human Development Minor (Bulletin 15, p. 281, 282)


These readings passed unanimously


The following first readings of new programs were moved separately; each passed unanimously:


Film Studies Minor (Bulletin 15, p. 294, 307-308)

Early Childhood Education Major with Childhood Education added (Bulletin 15, p. 294-297, 309-313)



Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review Report

C. Filice said that his Committee would meet next Tuesday at 4PM in South Hall 209 to revisit the issue of general education requirements imposed by the Trustees.


Filice also presented the first reading of a change in Requirements for Business Studies Minors and Economics Minors (Bulletin 15, pp. 289-92). Filice offered an explanation of the motion. The School of Business would like to require a minimum average GPA of 2.5 for declaring either of the two minors above. Filice referred to the Policy Committee’s discussion of the request in the Committee’s minutes in Bulletin 15.


P. Schacht (Dean’s Office) said that this proposal raised an issue that deserved Senate’s most careful consideration—namely, what was the purpose of the academic minor at Geneseo? Was it


A: to allow ordinary liberal arts students in good standing (GPA of 2.0 or higher) to broaden their academic experience and round out an academic career by taking courses outside their majors.




B: to allow a select group of students—only those who would qualify for entrance to a major or professional program—to take what would essentially be a scaled-down version of the major.


Schacht reiterated that the issue was not whether certain programs were entitled to set a higher bar for students; the School of Business had already been able to do this for the major. Rather, the issue was specifically about the academic minor and whether it was right to set a higher standard for those who would be rounding out a major.


H. Howe (School of Business) appreciated Schacht’s framing of the discussion. He then offered some background on the request. When the AACSB came for their accreditation visit recently, they noted that the School of Business had a minimum GPA for majors but not minors. So the AACSB asked for a rationale.  The School of Business thus felt that a minimum GPA would address the accreditation team’s concerns and help with access to 300-level courses.


Next, Howe outlined three areas of concern that might arise from the minimum standard and why they would not be a problem:

1. In reference to the traditional purpose of the minor—to help students explore a discipline: it would still be possible for students to take at least four courses without declaring a minor.

2. The latest figures from the School of Business reveal 113 minors; the new GPA requirement would affect just seven of these students.

3. A precedent already exists with the Public Relations minor, which requires a minimum 2.7 GPA plus at least one grade of B in a writing course. The School of Education might also have to promulgate minimum GPA requirements.

Howe encouraged the Senate to vote for motion.


C. Whalen (Student Senator) spoke for the motion. She said that she had been present for the Policy Committee’s discussion. Professor Howard had said that students with a GPA lower than 2.5 could still be considered for admission to the minor with consideration of extenuating circumstances. But having the standard in place would raise standards for the School of Business and bring it in line with the business world. Furthermore, Geneseo’s high-quality students were now competing with students in higher-level schools. Students, Whalen argued, were not simply pursuing a minor out of interest; two or three classes would do that. A minor was more like a mini-major, and students would use it in that way.


E. Gillin (English) said that he had voted in favor of the change in the Policy Committee, but he would now vote against it. The proper purview of the Policy Committee was not to make policy but to reject policies against the College’s interest or to bring good policies to the Senate for its approval. He admitted that the School of Business was pointing out that prior College policy already overwrote Dean Schacht’s objections. But Gillin thought it good to reconsider this issue because of what Schacht had said in his opening remarks. Fundamentally, the issue of making the School of Business courses more rigorous, while laudable, was best addressed by School of Business courses preliminary to courses in the minor.


Gillin’s philosophical position was that grades were overrated as measure of student learning. He regularly advised students to hard or challenging courses because these would present a good challenge. By contrary, today’s proposal centered on the exact numerical standard that would allow a student into a minor.


G. Dingeldein (Research Accounting, Erwin) recalled her own career here as a School of Business undergraduate. Much coursework was geared to teamwork, but without a minimum GPA, there could be classmates who did not match one’s own standards. She also reminded the Senate that people who came to Geneseo were already at a high level already. Yes, a minimum GPA was a number, but it was important for accreditation and standards;


R. Vasiliev (Geography) opposed the motion. In response to Dingeldein, she argued that it was good to deal with someone not up to one’s standards because this matched real-life. But someone taking a minor might have had trouble as a freshman and might end up doing well in the minor without being able to meet the standard. A minor was not the same thing as a major; a minor was for trying out the material.


T. Macula (Mathematics) thought that a 2.0 GPA here was probably better than a 2.5 elsewhere. Why not make all minors have minimums? He also noted that, while he was sure if MATH 213 formed part of the Business minor, it was part of the Business Major, and it was indeed rigorous.


H. Hoops (Biology) expressed mixed feelings, but thought he would vote against the motion. While all faculty would like their students to have at least a 2.5, faculty would also not kick their students out if they only had a 2.1. What if students could not find a home academically if they did not make such GPA cutoffs?


J. McLean (Physics) asked, given the need to ensure the rigor of a program, whether there was a minimum requirement for completion of a minor?


J. Remy (Student Senator/Parliamentarian) said that he had mixed feelings. Every other minor in the catalogue had prerequisites. Maybe the College was better served by having people take the prerequisites.


Howe responded to several of the issues raised by the discussion.

1.Howe felt it very important for the Senate to see the difference between a program that allowed freedom to explore a discipline as opposed to this kind of professional minor, which formed an important part of how business students presented themselves to the world. In light of the 15-20 year process of getting accreditation from the AACSB, the School of Business was anxious that we do nothing that would impair the reputation of this program.


2. Howe proposed a thought experiment: imagine getting into Geneseo just to take sixteen courses and earn a certificate of attendance rather than a degree. Wouldn’t the Senate be deeply concerned about such certificate students, especially in how they might represent themselves as having completed a Geneseo program?


3. As to the meaning of the GPA, Howe agreed that we all know students who have had a rough start and then did better later. It was an empirical fact that students who declared a minor in the School of Business did so as juniors and seniors, so a minimum GPA didn't necessarily prevent them from doing this.


R. Vasiliev replied that the thought experiment did not work because Geneseo does not offer a certificate of this kind. This led her to another question: why did the School of Business have a minor? She still thought that a minor needed to be something that people should be allowed to fail at.


B. Lofquist (Sociology) spoke against the motion. Based on his attendance at the Policy Committee meeting, he thought a number of people had concerns about the appearance of Geneseo business minor on the transcript. The 2.5 GPA was an entrance requirement, not an exit; it would be perfectly possible for people to fall below 2.5 before graduation.


T. Macula inquired when students could declare a minor—how many credits were required? Also, without a 2.5, what was the limit on the courses one could take? Up to five, Howe replied.


C. Whalen felt strongly that she wouldn't favor this if she thought it would hurt many students. If students did not meet this requirement, they could still talk to the School of Business about it and apply for acceptance.


P. Schacht clarified that transcripts showed not merely minors taken but grades in relevant courses. He also thought Howe’s ’s thought experiment valuable for its distinction between outsiders and insiders. Vasiliev had pointed out that Geneseo students were already insiders—already at Geneseo. But, to some extent, the School of Business was outside because it had its own entrance requirements. So how far outside should the School of Business be? So far that students inside Geneseo and in good academic standing (including 2.0-2.5GPA) could not get in?


W. Gohlman (History/University Faculty Senator) spoke in favor of the motion. He reminded the Senate that there was a precedent in pre-professional programs that needed minimums. He cited the example of a history student who would meet a minimum 2.0 for History but need 2.5 to take the education program leading to certification in teaching history. Gohlman believed that we should allow professional programs to set different standards for majors and perhaps minors.


D. Granger (School of Education) argued that, unlike majors, minors needed to be more flexible. A student with a 2.48 GPA should have the same opportunities to take a minor as a student with a 2.5.


Filice spoke for the motion. Programs or departments should have the basic rights for high standards even if they exceeded the College norm. There was at least one minor program that already did this; either this was a mistake, or we had to concede the School of Business’s right to make this request, as would any Department or program in the school.


P. Markulis (School of Business) referred to Vasiliev’s question: why did the School of Business have a minor in the first place? The answer was that faculty in other departments had asked the School of Business to start a minor. As for the number of courses one could take, the minor contained just five School of Business courses at the 100 or 200 level. But in at least two upper-level courses that he taught, students not in the minor had not “jumped the hoops” that minors had. Markulis was not sure what the solution for this discrepancy should be, but repeated the point about the five courses.


K. (Student Senator) supported the motion. Accreditation made Geneseo students more marketable, and the whole point of going to college was to make oneself more marketable.


The question was called and passed nearly unanimously. A Senator then called for paper ballots to vote on the proposal. The motion was defeated, 48-19, with one abstention.



Graduate Academic Affairs Committee Report

D. Metz moved the second reading of the following revised courses:


ECED 541, Child Development and Assessment in Early Education (Bulletin, pp. 213-216)

ECED 542, Advanced Curriculum Development (Bulletin, pp. 217-220)

ECED 543, Policy Issues and Programs in Early Education (Bulletin, pp. 221-225)

ECED 544, Family Relations in Early Education (Bulletin, pp. 226-230)

EDUC 540, The Writing Process: Pre K-8 (Bulletin, pp. 246-249)


All of these motions passed unanimously.


Next, Metz moved the second reading of three new courses


ECED 545, Action Research Seminar in Early Education (Bulletin, pp. 231-235)

ECED 546, Language and Literacy Across the Early Childhood Curriculum (Bulletin, pp. 236-241)

ECED 547, Leadership/Inquiry Internship in Early Childhood (Bulletin, pp. 242-245)


All three passed unanimously.


Finally, he moved the second reading of a revised program:


M.S. in Education: Early Childhood Education, (Bulletin, pp. 250-254)

Moved 2d reading of Revised Progress MS in Education passed unanimously.


This also passed unanimously.             


Student Affairs Committee Report

D. McPherson said that the Committee had met recently, continuing the discussion on sexual assault, including its causes and possible solutions. The Committee would meet again next Tuesday; no immediate proposals were being considered.


President Dahl commended a recent speaker on campus, Troy Headrick, a nationally recognized expert on masculinity and the culture of rape.


Faculty Affairs Committee Report

No report.


President’s Report (delayed from original slot in the agenda)

1. Dahl announced formally that the Middle States Association had been reaccredited for another ten years. The report will appear on the College’s website. Middle States commended the College for the quality of its self-study, accredited the College, and urged it to continue efforts to create a more diverse community and to report on those efforts in the regular five-year midterm report.


2. Despite the recent vote on the Business Minor, Dahl announced that the AACSB had accredited the School of Business on Sunday; the recommendation report to the national body was very strong.


3. The Task Force on Faculty Evaluation, Roles and Rewards has been set up. All of the people that Dahl had asked to join the Task Force had enthusiastically taken on the challenge. This group would begin its work in the next week and map out two-and-a-half years of work concerning how we could align our evaluation procedures and expectations, as well as the Faculty development system, with what the College had become in the last fifteen years, especially as faculty have expanded their range of activities?


This “blue ribbon” Task Force, Dahl stressed, would not be the work of a week or a day; it was a major priority for the College that had been identified by the Faculty Affairs Committee. Dahl added that the Task Force would call upon appropriate outside consultants as it went along. He would be releasing a formal extended charge soon.


4. Nothing was happening for the moment on the State Budget, and Dahl had learned nothing from his recent visit to Albany/Schenectady. He thought it appropriate that as many members of the College as possible remind State Legislators that we should have at least minimum help to pay already contracted salary increases—clerical, mechanical, professional staff, faculty. Otherwise, we would be looking at a $1.2million shortfall. The College would protect jobs and course availability, but it would be much more appropriate for the Legislature to provide money that the Governor had already agreed to pay for salaries.


Old Business

There was no old business.


New Business

There was no new business.



The Senate voted unanimously to adjourn at 5.10 PM.


Respectfully submitted,





Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary