Geneseo

College Senate Bulletin

State University of New York at Geneseo

College of Arts and Sciences

Correspondence to Dennis Showers, School of Education, South 222C, showers@geneseo.edu, 245-5264

Note: Page numbers indicate pages as per the paper copy of the Bulletins.

Bulletin No. 5

Pages 32 - 49

November 30, 2012

Contents

Section Page

College Senate meeting agenda for December 4, 2012 33

University Faculty Senator Report, Fall Plenary 34

Student Affairs Committee minutes of October 23, 2012 35

Proposed revisions to the Research Council Constitution 36

Senate minutes of November 6, 2012 38

Research Council Minutes of November 9, 2012 42

Policy Committee minutes of November 13, 2012 43

UCC minutes of November 13, 2012 46

Agenda for Senate Meeting on December 4, 2012

Call to Order 5 minutes

Adoption of the Agenda (CSB V. 57, n 5; p. 33)

Adoption of the Minutes

Minutes of the Senate meeting of November 11, 2012 (CSB V. 57, n 5; pp. 38-42)

Special Reports

Faculty Athletic Representative David Granger 5 minutes

Report on the Budget President Dahl 20 minutes

Vice President Milroy

Senate Reports 15 minutes

President Christopher Dahl

Provost Carol Long

Chair Dennis Showers

Vice Chair Jan Lovett

Past-Chair David Granger

Secretary Cheryl Kreutter

Treasurer Paul Pacheco

University Faculty Senator Gregg Hartvigsen

Vice President, Student Assoc. Justin Shapiro

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate 30 minutes

Undergraduate Curricula

Undergraduate Policies

Graduate Academic Affairs

Student Affairs

Faculty Affairs

Old Business

New Business

Adjournment

5:00

University Faculty Senate Fall Plenary Meeting Report

Oct. 25-27, 2012

The UFS meeting discussions centered around two main topics: the Resource Allocation Tool (RAT) and student mobility (e.g., transferring among SUNY institutions, particularly community colleges to baccalaureate institutions).

During our "comprehensive colleges" sector meeting we discussed a proposed resolution that would place a "collar," or floor on the budget allocation model (RAT). The resolution proposed that no institution would receive a change in state funding of more than 10%. In the RAT budget proposal one institution (presumably Postdam) would have state support reduced by 27%. On the Senate floor I asked "If I vote in favor of this resolution will I have to return to my campus and tell them that I voted to further reduce state support at my own institution?" (because the revenue from a campus with a larger cut would have their cut reduced and made up by other schools like Geneseo). The answer was a clear "yes."

In the sector meeting I argued that our faculty body simply should not vote to accept a decrease at any campus but should, instead, put forth the position that funding be increased at institutions that demonstrate need. I also argued that we should ask the Chancellor about new efforts being implemented to seek funding opportunities for SUNY. I also spoke directly to Ken O'Brien, UFS President, and expressed my concern about the resolution and that I would vote against it because of the above problem of seeming to support the cutting of certain institutions' budgets. The resolution was abandoned and replaced with the "Resolution on the Need for Transitional Funding with the New Resource Allocation Tool." I voted in favor of this. It was passed by the UFS.

Of concern was a memo from the Chancellor telling Presidents to not say a word about the reallocation tool. Granted, the original announcement appeared to be a draft proposal but the follow up communication became what some called a "shut-up" memo.

Another concerned raised in our sector meeting involved the question as to what the future role of comprehensive colleges will be. Clearly, a primary mission of SUNY has always been the training of undergraduates. If the state continues to reallocate funding toward the health science centers and university centers the primary mission will be further undermined.

I actually believe the RAT is a good plan. Brian Hutsley (CFO), David Lavallee (Provost), and Nancy Zimpher (Chancellor) convincingly argued that the 10+ year old plan was outdated (e.g., funding institutes and programs that no longer exist). It appeared that the Senate, in general, was supportive of budgetary reallocation but that institutions must have support to help them transition to fulfill the needs of its constituents.

We heard about the topic of mobility and SUNY admin is working to facilitate the movement of students among institutions (meaning generally from community colleges to four-year institutions). One of many concerns raised involves how we at Geneseo will be able to graduate students that come with two years of below-average work from a below-average community college with the plan to complete our challenging programs with just an additional two years of work (e.g., STEM disciplines). If students come from certain institutions for which they appear to regularly be ill-prepared for programs at Geneseo we will be able to appeal the mobility policy for individual institutions and programs.

Of the baccalaureate degrees awarded by SUNY annually 46% of those students have some transfer credit. Additionally, 26% of all transfers are somehow recorded as going from four-year institutions to two-year institutions. Many students, however, are bouncing back and forth. SUNY is also working to deal with students who take classes simultaneously at multiple institutions.

We heard from the student assembly president Kevin Rea. Students are working to create a student board handbook for the Board of Trustees. They also are working to develop a "students bill of rights" to help strengthen students' rights in bringing issues before administrations. We also heard about concerns at certain campuses where students are afraid to take classes after 5:00 PM. Concerns were raised about how campus safety might affect campus prestige. [Geneseo has a "Personal Safety Committee" which I hope is keeping up with such concerns here.] There's a new student assembly website coming online: http://www.studentassembly.org/

We heard from Ram Chugh of the SUNY Retirees Service Corps. 1000-1200 retirees/yr. 20000 retirees total. The effort of this corps is to keep retirees connected to campus with retiree campus community (see http://www.suny.edu/retirees/index.cfm). Geneseo does not have a chapter for retirees. Some institutions block retirees from even being able to check out books. I contacted Milne Library and was told that retired faculty can check out books here at Geneseo. Interested in getting involved? Go to: http://www.suny.edu/retirees/campus_programs/campusprograms.cfm

The Senate passed the following three resolutions (I voted in favor of passing all three):

1. Resolution on the need for transitional funding with the new resource allocation tool.

2. Resolution for support of Downstate Medical Center: UFS " supports our Downstate colleagues in their effort to achieve the institutional mission…"

3. Resolution on the necessity for campus presidents.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregg Hartvigsen

Professor, Biology

SUNY Geneseo University Faculty Senator

[Note: our fellow comprehensive colleges includes Brockport, Oswego, Delhi, Cortland, Empire State, Fredonia, Geneseo, Oneonta, Old Westbury, Plattsburgh, Postdam, Purchase, New Paltz, and Buffalo State]

Minutes

Senate Student Affairs Committee

October 23, 2012

Present: Dan Repinski (Chair), Tim Bowersox (Recorder), Rick Coloccia, Sandy Carroll, Maria Volpe-McDemott, Nicola Mohan, Emily Gamello, David Rescott, Denise Scott, Steve Derne, Joyce Miller

Introductions

-Members introduced themselves and reported why they elected to serve on the SAC.

-Many members agreed that they wanted to serve on this committee because they believed that it has a direct impact on student life – it matters.

Chair’s Report

-Dan reiterated that actions of the College Senate are advisory to the President and that the role of Senate is to offer oversight and recommendations.

-Dan indicated that he is focused on running on-time meetings with procedural votes on important decisions – otherwise, not strictly adhering to Roberts Rules of Order.

-Dan proposed recording meeting Minutes by assigning in alphabetical order using surnames the task of recorder. The committee agreed upon this procedure.

-Note that there are some spare Tuesdays that we can add to the meeting schedule if needed.

Old Business

**Four 2012 Senate Recommendations

-The committee reviewed the 2011-12 SAC Final Report and the four Senate recommendations to the President.

-Dan reported that the recommendations were only officially given to the President in August. As a result, we have not yet learned of the President’s response to the Senate’s recommendations.

-On the issue of transportation funding for students seeking a medical evaluation following sexual assault, Dan reported that a program is in the process of being implemented but is not yet fully operational (i.e., SART – Student Advocate Response Team).

New Business

**Proposal: To recommend aligning campus smoking policy with the SUNY Board of Trustees action to make SUNY tobacco free.

-On March 13, 2012, the Chancellor’s Task Force for a Tobacco-Free SUNY was charged to ‘develop a policy and strategy to ensure that SUNY is tobacco-free as soon as possible.’

-On June 12, 2012, acting on the recommendations of the Chancellor’s Task Force for a Tobacco-Free SUNY, the SUNY Board of Trustees expressed support for the enactment of legislation to ban by 1/1/2014 the use of tobacco on grounds and facilities and in vehicles owned, leased, or controlled by the State University or its related entities.

-The following points were discussed:

-There are some concerns about coworkers who smoke not being willing to adapt to this.

-Studies have shown that 25 feet from the building is not safe enough to protect against the effects of second-hand smoke.

-There is concern that the policy won’t be actively enforced. Does Geneseo have the manpower in U.P. to enforce?

-U.P. can only intervene if an offender has received a request to stop by a campus community member and has refused to cooperate.

-Do we also provide smoking cessation support to smokers on campus? Do we delay the start of a ban to give smokers time?

-The existing policy should be actively enforced

-The SAC supports further consideration of this proposal.

-Members are encouraged to bring proposals to the next meeting.

**Should the College Senate offer recommendations to the President regarding education and prevention efforts concerning campus hazing?

-The following points were discussed:

-It would be valuable to offer a public, positive response to a very public, negative incident: Conversations about Campus Hazing

-Student members were asked: are they aware of the rules regarding hazing? What to look for?

-It was questioned to what degree the Geneseo culture supports students reporting hazing incidents.

-Some actions for further consideration regarding campus hazing: educate the campus community; review scholarship for best practices; research conditions on our campus; and review our policies, procedures, and responses.

-Local data is important, but there is some concern that students would not be forthcoming in their reports due to loyalties and group identity.

-It appears as though students are already well-educated on the matter.

-Exploring best practices for policy, education, etc. would be helpful.

-The committee supports developing this proposal. Dan will draft and share a new proposal.

**Review 2012 Senate SAC Final Report for possible action items.

The meeting adjourned before this item could be discussed.

Next SAC Meeting: November 13, 2012, at 4pm, Erwin 206

Research Council Constitution

Revisions Shown (November 2012)

ARTICLE X: STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE COLLEGE

Section 1: Research Council

a. Functions:

The functions of the Research Council are to encourage and promote research and scholarly activities on the campus. It shall improve present means and initiate new means to help faculty and staff members to obtain external funding. The Research Council will accomplish these functions by helping to set research direction for the campus, initiating programs that will aid researchers and scholars, and reviewing applications for internal grants that will further advance research on campus and the procurement of external funding. The Research Council will review applications for faculty and student summer fellowships, student research assistantships, the Hurrell/McNaron award and review the status of research and scholarly activities on the campus.

b. Membership:

1. There will be at least twelve and no more than one member from the teaching Faculty of each academic department up to twenty members from the teaching Faculty.

2. The membership term for teaching Faculty is three years, and shall expire on May 31^st. Consecutive terms are allowed. In the event that a seat becomes vacant the Council shall recommend to the President, a replacement who, upon appointment, shall serve a full three-year term.

3. The Director of Sponsored Research is an ex-officio non-voting member.

4. A representative of the Teaching and Learning Center is designated by the President as an ex-officio non-voting member.

5. One or more representatives designated by the Vice President of Administration and Finance as ex-officio non-voting member(s).

6. In May of odd years, the Research Council shall elect a Vice Chair from the teaching Faculty members of the Council. The term of office shall be two years from June 1^st until May 31^st, followed by a two year term as Chair.

c. Selection of Committee Members:

1. There should be a broad representation from all areas of the College. There shall be no more than one person from any academic department. All members must be or have been an externally funded Project Director and/or Principal Investigator, or currently performing scholarly creative activities or research, as evidenced by publication and presentations at professional meetings, exhibits, or performances. At least 50% of the Research Council must be or have been an externally funded Project Director and/or a Principal Investigator.

2. Each academic year, prior to May 1^st, the Research Council will provide to the President of the College a list of nominees for appointment to the Research Council to fill vacant seats.

d. Subcommittees:

1. Each member of the Research Council will serve on at least one subcommittee or working group.

2. Committee Membership: The Research Council Chair will appoint at least four teaching faculty members of the Council to each subcommittee or working group and designate a subcommittee chair. The Director of Sponsored Research is an ex-officio non-voting member on all subcommittees.

3. Subcommittees or working groups may be created or dissolved at the discretion of the Research Council.

e. Procedures and Protocol

1. Role of the Chair: direct activities of the Research Council, to include, but not be limited to: overseeing nomination of members, appointment of members to sub-committees or working groups, calling and chairing meetings, advising the Provost, serving as a liaison to the Director of Sponsored Research, and upholding the Constitution.

2. Role of the Vice-Chair: fulfill the role of the Chair in the case of his/her absence and assist in the timely publication of the minutes.

3. Minutes will be published in the Senate Bulletin.

4. Research Council members applying for internal grants, summer fellowships, or sponsoring students applying for undergraduate research programs will be excused from discussions and evaluations involving their own interests. Research Council members in the same department as another faculty member or student under consideration will be excused from discussions and evaluations at the discretion of the Chair.

5. The Research Council is an advisory body to the President of the College that reports their recommendations through the Office of the Provost as facilitated by the Director of Sponsored Research. All decisions will be held in confidence until officially approved and acted upon by the President, the Provost, or the Director of Sponsored Research. The Director of Sponsored Research will ensure that all applicants are informed of the official decisions concerning their funding requests, and will also be responsible for notifying faculty and staff of changes to any research policy.

Minutes of the College Senate Meeting

November 6, 2012

Present: J. Aimers, J. Allen, P. Barber, M. Board, B. Bonfiglio, M. Boquard, S. Bosch, T. Bowersox, A. Carroll, R. Coloccia, C. Dahl, D. Ernst, D. Farthing, K. Fletcher, E. Gamello, L. Gao, C. Geiger, D. Granger, D. Greenberg, C. Haddad, J. Hannie, B. Harrison, G. Hartvigsen, A. Heap, E. Joyce, R. Kahrs, C. Kreutter, J. Lasody, M.H. Lima, M. Liwanag, C. Long, J. Lovett, D. Mackenzie, G. Marcus, K.J. Matthews, V. Markowski, C. Mellow, J. Miller, J. Milroy, M. Mooney, J. Morgan, J. Okada, J. Over, P. Pacheco, D. Repinski, S. Salmon, D. Scott, J. Shapiro, D. Showers (Chair), M. Stolee, A. Tajima, G. Towsley, R. Vasiliev, M. Volpe- McDermott, A. Yankay

Call to Order

Chair Showers called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM.

I. Agenda accepted without objection

II. Minutes of October 16, 2012 accepted without objection

III. Senate Reports

President’s Report: President C. Dahl

· Discussed commission of sustainability and have received charter for the year, and they are preparing their reports. They are working very hard on issues such as sustainability education and a variety of planning and publicity. Christy Hanub (Biology) and Darlene Necaster (Facilities, Finance and Administration) are on this.

· Diversity administration - Cathy Mapes (history) and Tracy Paradis (library). This is available on the diversity webpage and the president’s webpage. Charge will also be available on the web page. Working on putting together a diversity plan in connection with the strategic planning group looking at international students and education and mentoring issues. Looking at further development of publicity for Real World Geneseo - in the mission of diversity. They would love to have willing members. I will be sending something to department secretaries. Please feel free to volunteer.

· Report the SUNY 2020 proposal discussed last time is going forward and doing vertical leg work. Vice President Milroy has the paper copy. Email Provost or Jim Milroy and they will send the entire document.

· We were spared most of the effects of the superstorm Sandy. New Jersey was hit very badly, and in the city, and portions of Brooklyn, Queens, Redwood, and Long Island. We have sent out a college notice to alumni and parents expressing concerns and things will be offered on this campus (opportunities) to assist and serve down there. Similar notice will be going out to students as well. Notice to staff will go out as opportunities are more clear. This may come out tomorrow in an email. The students want to be involved. They are talking to Tom Matthews.

o It would be useful to have a workshop for volunteers to one or more sites in the week before classes begin Jan 6 -13.

o On the model of Livingston Cares and hurricane Katrina - we will be going on a spring trip and restoration to NYC/NJ area. 40% of the students come from the affected areas. We will be asking students if they know of families who might have been extremely affected and holding a meeting for students working and volunteering. We just hope that we don’t cause more trouble than help J

o Through Livingston Cares we will have a designated hurricane relief, or through the Geneseo Foundation.

· Meg Stolee (History) - Recently the college has announced the new word mark (yes)

o Could you compare and tell us the cost of the research and implementation?

o President - We have had the same word mark since I got here. It is a normal process to redesign. This seemed appropriate to do. We engaged a firm of consultants - $65,000 divided by 26 is $2, 500 a year. The cost of implementing is very small. We are not going to do it all at once. Things get changed on the website for free. Everyone can use up the old stationary that we have accumulated. The intention of this process, which was participatory, used focus groups, advisory committees - the intuition was to present the college visually as it is today than as it was in 1986. If you look at the word mark and look at the other leading liberal arts colleges, you’ll see that the new word mark is very much in keeping visually.

o What was this money spent on?

o President - This is the typical cost of a firm that is usually spent. This was a contract that was reviewed by 100s of people that provided advice and guidance. This is the cost of doing business.

Provost’s report: Provost C. Long

· I’m back from a few days at Denver and they have some exciting things going on. They have been doing work with Scholarly Communication - looking at peer review for digital scholars, shared academics, spring events that we can be a part of virtually. I will be in NYC with the SUNY system on a conference on systemness. We will be in early December putting out applications for ambassadors for this summer. Be thinking about students who would be good candidates. Think about proposals, due in early February.

· I want to present a revised form H for chairs and departmental personnel committees for contract renewal and promotion. It has taken 8 years to change this form. Jim Beers, James McLean and James McAllen have been a part of this. There have been a lot of faculty in the conversation. The form, and the material for the intro - instructions to fill out the form and appendixes for what types of evidence to present. I need to do some working with the language with which will be done with the faculty affairs committee.

o College personal committee - I wanted them to have a look at the form. Those conversations focused on the major changes in the revised form (10 point scale in the subset). All those numbers disappeared and went to a yes/no. Many of the committee thought it wouldn’t be as helpful to them in the subsets. They were interested in having a little more definition to the response. I listened to the conversation and talked with president Dahl.

o There are a few changes:

o Under the performance ratings -- there is a range or evaluative words

o Minor change - in the last section - evaluation of contributions to service - the first one was originally disciplinary.

o Steve Derne (Sociology) - There are two main concerns - and I’m not sure that those are addressing this. 1) The faculty were not getting guidance whether they were meeting the standards I had to ask my chair what the numbers meant. I’m concerned the department will be concerned with yes/no. The differential use of the numbers across different departments. 2) There is not sufficient guidance on what to do about what the evaluation actually was. Both of those two things - I‘m not sure that this actually solves this problem. I hope that you think about these problems. We didn’t get the input from the Provost and the President that we needed. This is coming so late in a length of conversations.

· Provost: We have sometimes too many boxes and the conversation doesn’t always come across. (First point) I agree that we need to give good feedback; I also agree that the 10 point scale didn’t actually do that.

o Steve Derne - No one is just acceptable or model and this is

a limitation.

o In there were some numbers (50%) teaching - are those now

out? (They are still there) I’m not seeing them there and I thought that this would be a good thing. Some of us are stronger than others without that.

· Provost: We haven’t hanged the policy framework. It has been an ongoing conversation but I think that this is an important time to refresh this conversation. We need to be thoughtful in our responses. There are so many pressures from many directions and it is important that we be good stewards of the profession and thinking of the roles of faculty. We need to think about the kind of faculty culture we want to develop. We need student response and staff response and working hard to identify the public values that come out of a strong faculty culture.

· President - response - I think that Steve is right about the college’s admin failure to follow up on recommendations of admin process. I’m glad we are moving on this in a productive way with the leadership of Provost Long. This is a discussion about our responsibilities to our colleagues. 80% of our faculty are tenure track.

o Jan Lovett (Biology) - one of the things were it looks brief (in giving commentary) that was where the justification was and if we remember a couple years before, we had a document where we were supposed to have each dept. list the criteria for the different stages of promotion that was agreed upon with the last Provost and that was supposed to fit with this document to the personal committee.

· Provost - all of that has happened. Departments have presented their guidelines; they live in a website and they have used them for the last two years.

o Meg Stolee - How much variation in the specificity where

they layout their specifications?

· Provost - There is not huge disparity; there are some depending on the discipline. The problem has not been entirely solved. They are talking about what is most important for their discipline.

Chair: Dennis Showers

· I convened what I call a governance council - commmitees in college, faculty, and presidential commissions. We talked about a way we might better coordinate the governance group. Standardizing governance information. They will know how to get the information because it will be the same way you get information for other committees. I have met with a rep for CIT - and to make a shell and a link to a second page that will have other advisory bodies. We will have a menu with a master governance calendar so they know exactly where to go. This will become governance central. Each body will have a template with standard presentation with meeting schedule, the current roster (these are constantly changing) and we have solved this problem by having the chair being the roster manager. This allows the bodies themselves to manage the roster. Standard place for committees and reports.

· The second thing: group of faculty to talk about support and evaluation of teaching. The groups invited are all distinguished teaching, recent excellence award winners, and others that are interested to form a steering committee to frame a discussion on November 28^th.The issue was we’ve spent so much focus on changing the student evaluation form to make it do what it needs to do - where it might not be able to do that. We would like to talk about - when a faculty member goes up for tenure - what should be presented to make the decision? We will reverse engineer that and find out what we need, and then create a support system for a body of evidence - how do we evaluate that evidence? We will try to get people together after Thanksgiving. We would like to get to a more sophisticated place to learn how to get better numbers on the SOFI

· University awards committee - Thinking about chancellor’s awards in early career - if you have any thoughts - we are in discussion. What do we do if someone wins an award in the 4^th year and they go up for tenure - how does this work?

o A chancellors award for excellence in governance - awarded to a campus rather than an individual

o Kurt Fletcher (Physics) Who maintains the websites? Who puts the records on after every meeting?

o Chair: There is a timeframe. Shared Governance - it might be advantageous to include a link to student association. The SOFI emerged from a student member to evaluate faculty. If this is to be done, we will engage it. This went to the CIE’s, then a student evaluation of instruction. One senator rose “this is the students’ opinion about instruction”. This is not to replace current discussion about SOFI - this is we’ve spent so much time on getting a SOFI instruction - we haven’t thought about other things that we can do. We need to get beyond that.

o Kurt Fletcher: what is the relationship between the website and the college bulletin?

o Chair: That is part of a large discussion. Would it be redundant? Could we take the website and easily pull everything together to send it out. One of the issues in communication - it is so easy to say - we need more communication - let’s send it out. Giving them access to what they need to know and making it so they know how to get it - that is more important.

o Q (Steve #LastName): It is important to make it searchable - we need to have CIT work on ways to make this searchable. The thing about teaching - this should help ongoing faculty figuring out how to improve the teachers

o Dennis - David Parfitt is co-chairing the committee to integrate the functionality.

Vice Chair: Jan Lovett

· no report

Past Chair: David Granger

· no report

Secretary: Cheryl Kreutter

· no report

Treasurer: Paul Pacheco

· We will be soliciting contributions College Senate next month.

University Faculty Senate –

· Look at the written report. Resource allocation tool - SUNY Central was devising a tool for reallocation, we discussed voting on a resolution on capping how much a certain campus would lose. I spoke against this. Geneseo would lose more money if it was transferred to university centers. The core mission of SUNY is to educate students. We should not favor a cut. We talked about mobility issues with Community Colleges - students being unprepared. We are concerned - what are we supposed to do - we must accept these students and accept what they received (credits). There is a loophole - if students come in from a CC and they are weak, we can appeal to not take students from that school.

o Dennis - campus governance leaders were also concerned with reallocation

Student Association

· The SOFI task force meets November 12 - if you have people with suggestions, email sabp@geneseo.edu

· The senate student caucus passed

· Thank you for the later construction time - we encourage that this is in place

· Recommend medical amnesty by the college senate

· We are trying to get everyone to the polls by 9 pm

o Steve Derne: Does amnesty refer to student affairs (no). It would come to executive committee

o Chair: It is really smart to engage the alumni

UG Curriculum Committee: Meg Stolee

· UCC moves the first reading of the new courses ARTH 302, ENGL 202, MATH 341. Motion carried. Move first reading of revised courses –

o Motion carries.

· Moves the first reading of course deletion:

o Motion carries

· First reading - program revisions –

o Motion carries

· UG Committee: Every course has a replacement at the 200 level

o Motion carries

· Next meeting is November 13 at 4pm

UG Policies Committee meeting November 13 at 4pm - Dennis is convening the meeting

Graduate Curricular - no report

Student affairs - no report

Faculty Affairs - next meeting November 13

Old business - no

New business - no

Announcements - no

Meeting adjourned 5:02 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl A. Kreutter, College Senate Secretary

William Jones III Milne Library

Research Council Minutes

9 Nov 2012, 3:30pm-4:30pm

Members Present: Paul Pacheco, Lori Bernard, Jenny Apple, Anne Baldwin, Doug Baldwin, Lynette Bosch, Ted Everett, Kelly Keegan, Chris Leary, Michael Lynch, George Marcus, Dave Parfitt, Traci Phillips, Anne-Marie Reynolds, Jennifer Rogalsky, Farooq Sheikh, Eugene Stelzig

Special Guest: Patty Hamilton-Rodgers

Discussion:

1) Dean Johnston Student Assistantships: There were 7 applications and enough funds for three awards. The following were awarded: Carl Beno, Kathrin Gallo, and Maria Sigalis

a. It was noted that this was the most applications received in recent memory for this award. The award was raised to $1,000 this round and it appears to have helped.

b. Discussion ensued about whether or not the award should stay at $1,000 and it was decided to keep it at this amount.

2) Digital Text Award: A resubmission to the Digital Textbook Research Grant program was discussed and the Council voted to recommend that the proposal not be supported (0 – yes/12-no/2-abstentions). Anne will send an email to Mark Scott with the Research Council recommendation to see if Mark would still like to review it for funding. (Update: Mark has taken the recommendation of the Council and decided that he will not review the proposal any further.)

3) Research Council Constitution: Dennis Showers asked Paul and Anne to review another part of the Research Council constitution. The primary question is how to deal with the language of 50% of the RC members being P.I.’s or former P.I.’s now that the membership of the Council has expanded.

a. Option 1 – Remove the wording and assume that all members will be qualified.

b. Option 2 – Change or lower the percentage, although that might not solve the problem.

c. Option 3 – Replace the current rule with “All members must be current or past externally funded principal investigators or currently performing other activities”. The Council voted unanimously for this option. Paul will make the change and present it to the Executive Committee. (Update: Comments during the Executive Committee meeting of 11/27/12 led to additional minor revisions. These are now in the hands of the President for final approval.)

4) Undergraduate Research website – Patty Hamilton-Rodgers gave us an update and preview of the Undergraduate Research website. The Council reviewed the content.

a. Patty asked the group for information on alumni who conducted research. She would contact them to put information up on the site. She asked for feedback on the site. Several suggestions about links and what to put on each page were discussed.

b. She would like to launch the site so it coincides with GREAT Day emails in January. If not, the site will be launched sometime during the 2013 spring semester.

5) An announcement was made that the working groups led by George Marcus and Emilye Crosby will be meeting soon.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:24pm.

Submitted by Lori Bernard, Traci Phillips, and Paul Pacheco

Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

November 13, 2012

Present: Isidro Bosch, Dori Farthing, Kurt Fletcher, John King, Maria Lima (Chair), Jared Meagher, Michael Mooney, Dennis Showers, Steven Stubblefield, Atsushi Tajima, Gary Towsley, Jackie Wideen.

Dennis Showers convened the meeting and introduced the committee’s chair, Maria Lima. He also brought copies of the policy changes the Dean of the College wants us to consider this academic year. Because Savi Iyer was at a UCC Meeting today, thus unable to explain the rationale behind such changes, and the other two Tuesdays in the fall semester are taken by an Executive Committee Meeting (the 27^th) and a Senate Meeting ( on Dec. 4^th), the committee decided to wait until the spring to discuss the proposal. We will try to meet on the first week of the spring semester.

For now the memo from the Dean’s Office is copied below. Please take the time to read it carefully BEFORE our meeting with the Dean.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Maria.

TO: FROM: RE: DATE:

Chair, Committee on Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review Savi Iyer, Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services

Policy Changes to be considered by the Policy Committee for 2012-13

November 12, 2012

POLICY ITEM #1:

GRADUATION DATE AND COMMENCEMENT

Current policy copied here from undergraduate bulletin:

Application for Graduation

Candidates for degrees must apply for graduation by completing a Graduation Application form in the Office of the Registrar in Erwin 102, by deadlines posted on the Academic Calendar during the semester prior to their anticipated date of graduation. Students qualify for participation in May commencement if they have completed their degree requirements in December of the previous year, by May of the current year, or if they have 16 semester hours or fewer to complete before the following December. Failure to complete a Graduation Application form by posted deadlines may delay their graduation.

Proposed:

Application for Graduation

Candidates for degrees must apply for graduation by completing a Graduation Application form in the Office

of the Registrar in Erwin 102, by deadlines posted on the Academic Calendar during the semester prior to their anticipated date of graduation. Students qualify for participation in May commencement if they have completed their degree requirements in December of the previous year, or will complete in May or August of the current year, or if they have 16 semester hours or fewer to complete before the following December. Failure to complete a Graduation Application form by posted deadlines may delay their graduation.

POLICY ITEM #2:

[deleted]

POLICY ITEM #3:

Non-Matriculated Status (page 11, Undergraduate Bulletin)

Current Policy:

Non-Matriculated Status

Undergraduate non-matriculated status permits students who are not pursuing a degree program to register for a limited

number of credit hours (not more than a total of 15 credits). To maintain satisfactory academic standing in the College, non-matriculated students must earn at least a 1.65 grade point average in every semester in which they are enrolled and complete 50% or more of the semester hours for which they are registered. Applications for non-matriculated status are available from the Office of the Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services or visit dean.geneseo.edu. Non-matriculated students may take no more than two courses per semester.

Proposed Policy:

Non-Matriculated Status

Undergraduate non-matriculated status permits students who are not pursuing a degree program to register for a limited

number of credit hours (not more than a total of 15 credits). To maintain satisfactory academic standing in the College, non-matriculated students must earn at least a 1.65 2.00 grade point average in every semester in which they are enrolled and complete 50% or more of the semester hours for which they are registered. A non-matriculated student whose Geneseo gpa is below 2.00 will not be permitted to register for additional coursework. Applications for non- matriculated status are available from the Office of the Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services or visit dean.geneseo.edu. Non-matriculated students may take no more than two courses per semester.

POLICY ITEM #4:

Transfer Credit

Current Policy:

Transfer candidates are encouraged to meet with an admissions advisor to discuss the applicability of their transfer credits to the specific degree programs in which they plan to matriculate. A transfer evaluation, including a list of equivalent courses at Geneseo for which credit has been granted, is provided at the time of admission. Course credits transfer to Geneseo, grades and quality points earned elsewhere do not transfer. To receive appropriate credit, an applicant must ensure that official transcripts from all previous institutions are on file in the Admissions Office. Final authority on transfer credit acceptance lies with the Office of the Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services. Courses completed at regionally accredited institutions of higher education and recorded on official transcripts are awarded credit under the following conditions:

1. A maximum of 30 semester credit hours of elective credit is granted for courses that differ significantly in substance or level from the courses that comprise the formal curriculum at Geneseo.

2. A maximum of 60 semester credit hours may be transferred from two-year, degree-granting institutions.

3. A maximum of 90 semester credit hours may be awarded for studies completed at four-year, degree-granting institutions (including no more than 60 semester credit hours from two-year institutions).

4. Graduates of community colleges who earn A.A. or A.S. degrees may expect full credit, up to a maximum of 60 semester credit hours, upon enrolling at Geneseo. Based upon a review of the general education component of their programs, A.A.S. degree holders may be awarded full transfer credit. Coursework from proprietary institutions will be reviewed on a course-by-course basis.

5. A grade of C- or above must have been earned for each course accepted for transfer credit when not part of a two-year degree. Students should note that while two-year degree courses with D grades may transfer as general electives or to meet core requirements, they will not be accepted as equivalents for any Geneseo courses that require minimum competence of at least a C- or to satisfy major requirements. (In general, Geneseo will not accept transfer credit for courses graded on a Pass/Fail or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory basis. Exceptional cases are adjudicated by the Office of the Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services.) For information on transferring credit for single courses taken during summer or intersession at other institutions, see the section on “Studying at Other Colleges” in this bulletin.

Proposed Policy:

1. A maximum of 30 semester credit hours of elective credit is granted for courses that differ significantly in substance or level from the courses that comprise the formal curriculum at Geneseo.

2. A maximum of 60 semester credit hours may be transferred from two-year, degree-granting institutions.

3. A maximum of 90 semester credit hours may be awarded for studies completed at four-year, degree-granting institutions (including no more than 60 semester credit hours from two-year institutions).

5. A grade of C- or above must have been earned for each course accepted for transfer credit when not part of a two-year degree. Students should note that while two-year degree courses with D grades may transfer as general electives or be used to meet core requirements, they will not be accepted as equivalents for any Geneseo courses that require minimum competence of at least a C- or to satisfy major requirements the credits will not transfer. (In general, Geneseo will not accept transfer credit for courses graded on a Pass/Fail or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory basis. Exceptional cases are adjudicated by the Office of the Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services.) For information on transferring credit for single courses taken during summer or intersession at other institutions, see the section on “Studying at Other Colleges” in this bulletin.

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
13 November 2012, 4:00PM, Sturges 103

Meeting Agenda

Members:
G. Marcus (Physics),
M. Stolee (History; Committee Chair),
D. Greenberg (student),
M. Liwang (Education)
W. Harrison (English),
J. Haynie (Biology),
A. Yankay (student),
M. Walsh (Athletics),
H. Farian (Computer Science)
M. Board (Art History)

Guests:
J. Katz (Psychology),
G. Briggs (Biology)
S. Iyer (Dean's Office),
J. Over (Geological Sciences)

I. Announcements/Approve Minutes of 10/23

• Revisiting question of committee vice-chair

Stolee: The membership is assigned homework for our next meeting, scheduled for 12 Feb. Should the committee adopt the model of having a chair and vice-chair? If so, what should the roles and responsibilities be?

Harrison: Is this idea in answer to senate question of committee continuity from year to year? Is that really an issue for UCC?

Stolee: Succession mainly about learning the technical, "nitty-gritty" issues. Perhaps the role should address the learning curve.

Haynie: Is there a model?

Stolee: No: but think about the skills needed. Knowledge and continuity from one chair to the next.

Issue tabled until next meeting.

• Minutes of last meeting, 23 October 2012, approved.

• Revisiting question of meeting rules

Stolee: Should we adopt Roberts Rules of Order?

Harrison: The last chair was more formal in noting the division between our discussion and voting.

Stolee: I wish to work informally.

Over: In FAC, we use them only as necessary.

Informal procedures adopted by consensus.

II. Review of Proposals

Note: courses are on meeting agenda as they are listed on the Senate agenda.
However, the committee will address each department's business in its entirety, moving from category to category.

Department: Psychology

• Revised Courses:

PSYC 307: Sensation and Perception

PSYC 315: Psychology of Language

PSYC 325: Cognitive Psychology

PSYC 330: Biological Psychology

PSYC 331: The Neural and Chemical Basis of Behavior

PSYC 332: Human Neuropsychology

PSYC 335: Behavioral Pharmacology

PSYC 338: Animal Behavior

PSYC 357: Behavior Genetics

Katz: The courses now require BIOL103/104 or BIOL 116/117 as a prerequisite.

Marcus: Some of those BIOL courses can be awarded for AP credit, which comes in as transfer credit. How will that be gauged on the student transcript? Will it be handled as a waiver?

K: Yes, as a waiver.

Stolee: Have you determined how this change impacts Biology?

Katz: No. The BIOL courses are already related requirements for the major. New policy helps students not procrastinate.

Walsh: By pushing folks towards BIOL before these 300-levels, might there be enrollment issues?

Harrison: But that fits the schedule already printed in the PSYC advisement guide.

Stolee: A pre existing requirement. Now formalizing it as a prerequisite for certain classes.

Iyer: All of the proposals need correction: two classes should not be featured as a single prerequisite. And this change may have an impact on BIOL: it is foreseeable--more students will seek these classes.

Haynie: Will this change affect the "blocks" of courses organized for majors?

Briggs: No. Blocks made up after upperclassmen register.

Stolee: Move to consolidate all courses for a single vote.

Courses passed. Vote unanimous.

• Old Business:

PSYC 294: Peer Advocacy

Katz: Revised proposal to make the out of class hours fit to the 3 credit count 3(2-3). Also clarified the total time use for the class.

Marcus: Notes a typographical error.

Iyer: It will be corrected.

Stolee: Move to vote.

Course passed. Vote unanimous.

Department: Biology

• Revised Programs:

BA in Biology

BS in Biochemistry

BS in Biology

Briggs: We want to create a pre-major for BIOL majors. We have a lot of majors, and some folks linger, unable to complete the courses successfully and satisfactorily, before finally switching programs. A C+ will be required in the first two lecture courses (117 & 119, for many students), not labs, in order to declare the major. If AP credit satisfies 117 and/or 119, the student will need a C+ in the first two lectures she takes in order to declare.

Marcus: Notes a syntax issue in the proposal with requirement #4, which also affects requirement #5 as well. These errors are in all three proposals.

Iyer: Offers correction.

Walsh: Are we creating a retention issue with the major?

Briggs: 20-25% of the students who declare the major may not complete the program. But students who get through the loophole presently don't do very well in later courses.

Yankay: Expresses concern about students who are forced out of programs. Will there be preparations and precautions made to guide students through this program change?

Briggs: Do you mean how will other departments deal with these students, when they change majors?

Stolee: So where might orphaned students go? Are we talking roughly 100 students a year?

Yankay: Is there anything to give them guidance?

Iyer: The proposed changes will at least make it so students face the issue earlier than their junior year.

Stolee: This is an enrollment issue that is sort of the opposite of the one facing PSYCH.

Harrison: Requirements should use either 2.3 or C+ to be clear.

Iyer: Will correct.

Marcus: These changes affect the minor--there's a new course restriction.

Briggs: That is deliberate.

Stolee: Move to consolidate all program changes for a single vote.

Revisions passed. Vote unanimous.

• Old Business:

BIOL 390: Molecular Techniques

This proposal description originally lacked information concerning the rotation.

Briggs: It will be offered every semester.

Course approved. Vote unanimous.

Department: Geological Sciences

• Revised program:

BA in Geological Sciences

Over: We are changing the related requirements.

Haynie: Will that affect only education [certification] students?

Over: No. All students.

Board: What is the advantage of the change?

Over: We reduce the requirements in light of larger professional issues and the practice of other major programs.

Haynie: Does this change serve education students, folks going off to high school teaching?

Over: We advise our majors to take Physics.

Stolee: Move to vote.

Revisions approved. Vote unanimous.

III. Old Business

• (ARTH 305)

This proposal has been tabled, to reappear as part of a later ARTH package.

IV. New Business

• On the SUNY Credit/Contact Hour ratio

Haynie: Recently did some work in Carnegie units, and is curious about the credit awarded for "Activity supervised as a group." The SUNY criteria define these experiences (lab, field trip, practicum, workshop, group studio) as "with little outside preparation expected." That's an antiquated conception of the lab. In my labs, there is work to be done before hand: data analysis, written reports, etc. So, should we stick with the SUNY credit equivalency?

Iyer: The college is consistent in keeping to the present guidelines, although there are a few variants. But in general if there are 15 meetings, between 100-150 minutes, one hour is awarded.

Haynie: Does anyone examine how much "outside preparation" labs require?

Iyer: It is assumed that the courses follow these guidelines as closely as they can. It is an older description, from 1976, that doesn't respond to new approaches, such as on-line work.

Haynie: Is it fair to award "prepared" folks credit hours deemed "with no preparation." We're perhaps asking them to do too much.

Stolee: What's the action?

Haynie: I just want to understand if I should have folks prepare for lab.

Stolee: I would prefer a recommendation for action. Should there be a subcommittee or resolution?

Marcus: So, according to the Dean, we make sure that when a lab course comes through the committee, we try to make sure it satisfies the guideline. That's the purpose of the committee. The question is, does certain documented "preparation" change the idea of what credit hour the course awards?

Haynie: Yes.

Stolee: So we as the committee need to consider this issue for the next lab class we approve.

Stolee: Any further business?

Marcus: Move to adjourn.

Meeting adjourned, 4:56PM.

Notes: Full proposals can be found at boxes.geneseo.edu—doc

Our next meeting is Tuesday, 12 February 2013, location TBA.