College Senate Bulletin
State University of New York at Geneseo
College of Arts and Sciences

 

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

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


Bulletin No. 4

      Pages 27-34
      November 30, 2011

 

Contents

Page             Topic

27                    Agenda: Senate Meeting on December 6, 2011

29                    FAC minutes 2011.10.25

30                    Executive Committee minutes 2011.11.01

31                    Research Council minutes 2011.11.11

34                    SAC minutes 2011.11.15

 

Agenda for Senate Meeting

December 6, 2011

Call to Order                                                                                              5 minutes

Adoption of the Agenda (CSB #4, p. 27)

Adoption of the Minutes

 

Guests/Other Reports                                                                               15 minutes

            Jenny Katz/Melinda DuBois:

Advisory Committee on Campus Security

            Provost Long: Strategic Planning Group

 

Senate Reports                                                                                        10 minutes

President                                    Christopher Dahl

Provost                                       Carol Long

Chair                                           Dennis Showers

Vice Chair                                   Jim Williams

Past-Chair                                  David Granger

Secretary                                    Cheryl Kreutter  

Treasurer                                    Aaron Steinhauer

University Faculty Senator         Gregg Hartvigsen

Vice President, Student Assoc.  Tyler Ocon

 

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate                                      10 minutes

Undergraduate Curricula                Ren Vasiliev

Undergraduate Policies                  Jeff Over

Graduate Academic Affairs            Susan Salmon

Student Affairs                               Dan Repinski

Faculty Affairs                                James McLean

 

Old Business

            Discussion of restructuring the Senate and faculty governance        15 minutes

 

New Business

            Proposed amendment to allow non-Senators to serve on Senate Committees (see below)

 

Adjournment:   5:15     

 

Proposal for Governance Change: Add a fixed number of positions in each Senate Committee for non-Senators.

ARTICLE IX: STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE

Each Section describes one committee with a subsection delineating membership.

Proposed: to add, where appropriate in each section:

“Up to four members of the committee may be teaching faculty who are not Senators. Members will be chosen by the Executive Committee from volunteers.”

 

Minutes of the Faculty Affairs Committee

October 25, 2011

 

Present:  J. McLean (Chair), J. Aimers, J. Allen, B. Evans, D. McPherson, E. Savellos, H. Waddy, L. O’Brien, R. Kahrs, Guests: J. Rao, S. Iyer

Excused: A. Eisenberg (medical)

 

Call to Order

James McLean called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM.

Agenda adopted without objection.

 

Chair’s Report: 

Top three action items from survey of Committee were (1) finalizing wording of recommendation for new H Form, (2) improvement of family leave policy, (3) ways to advise Provost on distribution of faculty lines.

McPherson asked about increasing Senate oversight of Task forces.  That was the lowest ranking, actually, but we can revisit later.

 

New Business

Julie Rao: Institutional Research has piloted using KnightWeb for course evaluations with Sped courses last spring and all summer courses  Response rate was very low for summer.  Provost seems to support idea of upfront menu directing students to do course feedback via SOFI menu on KnightWeb, although some push-back from Dean’s office.  Why aren’t students doing their SOFIs?

Rob: Rate my Professor is preferred because students can see comments, not just a score.  Could something draw students’ attention to SOFIs when they first log onto Knight Web?

Leigh: I’ve heard over & over that students don’t feel like their feedback is being “heard.”

Duane: What are we trying to achieve? Doesn’t see Knight Web as being much different from OCE…

Helena: Recommendation has been around, for some time, to use IDEA.  James seconds this, and adds that, due to $$, that change cannot currently move forward.  Helena: We need to think about an evaluation tool that addresses a more modern, flexible model of teaching.

Julie: We’re leaning toward Knight Web; any major concerns?

James: Would like to ensure that the FAC recommendations from last year are included, particularly the recommendation to encourage giving the SOFIs in class.

 

James: An issue raised by some faculty members is the recent increased availability of numerical results of SOFIs.  Does the committee view this something worthy of further discussion in the future.  Consensus was yes

 

Old Business:

No time left.

 

Adjournment

James McLean adjourned the meeting at 5:02 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Leigh O’Brien

 

Minutes of the College Senate Executive Committee

November 1, 2011

 

Present: C. Dahl, D. Granger, G. Hartvigsen, C. Kreutter, C. Long, J. McLean, T. Ocon, J. Over, D. Repinski, S. Salmon, D. Showers (Chair), R. Vasiliev, J. Williams

 

Guests: Jim Milroy

 

Call to Order: Chair Showers called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM.

1. Agenda adopted with no revisions.

 

2. Preparation of November 8 College Senate Agenda

 

3. New Business

a.    Proposals for Governance Change:

 

Article IV: Membership

-        Chair Showers introduced amendment to be presented to the faculty on November 9.

Current Membership, Section 4: The President of the College, the Provost, all Vice Presidents, and the Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services shall be members of the College Senate by reason of their offices.

 

Proposed amendment adds underlined

Section 4: The President of the College, the Provost, all Vice Presidents, and the Dean of Curriculum and Academic Services shall be non-voting members of the College Senate by reason of their offices.

 

James McLean moved to present amendment to faculty.  Motion seconded.   Motion carried.

 

Article II: Purposes and Powers of the Governing Bodies

-        Redefine administrative faculty consistent with our practice.  Chair Showers proposed editorial change from “administrative faculty” to “professional staff.”  Discussion ensued.  Questions raised: Is “professional staff” defined? Is the term too broad? President Dahl suggested we look to language of the Trustees.  Chair Showers will wordsmith for next Executive Meeting. 

Current Section 1: The Faculty. The Faculty shall be the assembly of the teaching and administrative faculty.' It shall be empowered to ratify constitutional amendments, to decide matters brought to it by referendum, and to decide matters referred to the faculty-at-large by the President of the College or by the College Senate. 

Footnote to Section 1 reads, in part: “Administrative Faculty: The phrase "administrative faculty" refers to full time and term appointment part-time faculty, including Student Affairs, whose primary responsibilities do not lie within an academic department or division of the College.”

               Article VI: Membership 

-        Section 5: The administrative Faculty shall be represented in the College Senate by eight senators, two of whom shall be elected by Academic Affairs administrative faculty (one elected each year), two by Administration and Finance administrative faculty (one elected each year), two by Student Services administrative faculty (one elected each year), one by the College Advancement administrative faculty (elected every other year) and one elected at-Large (elected every other year) Administrative Senators will be elected to two year terms.

Proposed Section 5

Section 5: The administrative Faculty professional staff shall be represented in the College Senate by eight senators, two of whom shall be elected by Academic Affairs administrative faculty professional staff (one elected each year), two by Administration and Finance administrative faculty professional staff (one elected each year), two by Student Services administrative faculty professional staff (one elected each year), one by the College Advancement administrative faculty professional staff (elected every other year) and one elected at-Large (elected every other year) Administrative Senators will be elected to two year terms.

In other places in the Constitution the phrase “administrative faculty” will be replaced by “professional staff.” E.g.:

 

Article IX, Section 1: (UCC)

“… shall include at least two administrative Faculty Senators…”

 

Article IX: Standing Committees of the Senate

-        Proposal to add a fixed number of positions in each Senate Committee for non-Senators  

Chair Showers suggested language for amendment to allow non-senators to serve on senate committees.  Chair Showers noted that all senate committees have set number of senators, and, currently, all senators must serve on other committees.

Proposed: to add, where appropriate in each section:

“Up to four members of the committee may be teaching faculty who are not Senators. Members will be chosen by the Executive Committee from volunteers.”

Questions and comments: President Dahl likes language of “up to four.”  Can volunteers from other committees serve on other committees?  Also, can volunteers vote?  Does this have to wait and become part of the “package” that we propose to senate?  What criteria will be used to choose volunteers?

 

b.     Review of the Charge of the Senate Executive Committee

 

Adjournment: Chair Showers adjourned the meeting at 5:04 PM

 

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Kreutter, College Senate Secretary

 

Research Council Minutes

11 November 2011, 3:30 pm-4:30 pm

Members Present:  Paul Pacheco, Lori Bernard, Jenny Apple,  Doug Baldwin, Ted Everett, Meredith Harrigan, Ben Laabs, Chris Leary, Michael Lynch, Doug MacKenzie, George Marcus, Leigh O’Brien, Jennifer Rogalsky, Farooq Sheikh, Eugene Stelzig, Kazushige Yokoyama, Anne Baldwin.

1.     Working Group to Discuss and Office of Undergraduate Research

·       Paul announced that Michael Lynch will take over as Chair of the Working Group to discuss and Office of Undergraduate Research. 

·       Michael thought that a meeting would be scheduled before the end of the calendar year. 

2.     Research Council Membership

·       Paul announced that Anne Marie Reynolds, Music, and Lynette Bosch, Art History, will be joining the Research Council beginning in January once appointments are completed. 

·       Chairs of the Departments of Art Studio and Theater and Dance have not yet responded regarding representation.

3.     CIEE International Faculty Development Seminar Awards

·       Paul noted that 5 applications were received for the November 4th deadline.

·       Chris noted that the applications were all quite good and asked that a voting meeting be scheduled for in-depth discussion of the applications.

·       Paul noted that he had also read the applications and agreed with Chris’ assessment.

·       Chris suggested that the Faculty Research Subcommittee make more than one award.

·       Anne noted what funds the Council had available in various programs and there was general discussion about how many IFDS awards to make.

·       The Council moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that two CIEE IFDS awards be made this year.  [Note: Careful analysis of the budget after the meeting by Anne indicated a projected shortfall in the Undergraduate Research and Travel Grants and Faculty Travel Grants Programs for the Spring cycle.  After a discussion, the decision was made on 11/16/11 to rescind the decision to fund two CIEE IFDS awards and keep the money from reserves to bolster funds in these other programs should the projected shortfalls materialize.  PJP]

4.     Dean Johnston Assistantships 

·       The Council unanimously approved that the single Dean Johnston Assistantship application received for the October 28th deadline be awarded.

5.     COPLAC Teagle Foundation Proposal and SUNY Geneseo Participation

·       Paul summarized the COPLAC request for institutional participation in its planned proposal submission to the Teagle Foundation for a pilot project involving inter-institution mentoring of undergraduate research and exploration of faculty workload issues involving undergraduate mentoring.

·       Paul noted that the inter-institution mentoring might work best for certain disciplines.

·       There was general discussion of the types of research projects within several fields that might work.

·       Ted noted that faculty compensation proposed for participation in the pilot and expressed concern regarding the imbalance for faculty who are not compensated for similar effort.

·       Michael queried the Council members regarding any prior experience with distance learning.

·       Chris noted the potential additional benefit of the proposed project regarding distance learning collaborations and other grant possibilities.

·       Farooq also thought that the planned examination of faculty workload related to undergraduate research mentoring might benefit Geneseo.

·       The Council agreed that it would be supportive of Geneseo’s involvement in the COPLAC Teagle proposal project and would assist with recruiting faculty participants.

 

6.     Presidential Summer Fellowships

·       Paul noted that for the past several years not all available Presidential Summer Fellowships have been awarded, likely due to the lack of faculty hiring.

·       There was general discussion regarding allowing prior recipients to re-apply.

·       The Council approved a change in the guidelines for this year only to allow prior recipients of the Presidential Summer Fellowships to re-apply with preference given to faculty members who have not previously held one.

·       Anne will email the faculty to inform them of this one-year change in the guidelines.

 

7.     Update from Working Group for Proposal Support

·       Jennifer Rogalsky updated the Council on recent progress by the Working Group including proposed changes to the Proposal Writing Course Release Award to include a menu of support options and to allow for retroactive awards for proposal submissions that fall between deadline periods.

·       Jennifer noted that the Provost is supportive of allowing a menu of support options instead of a course release, and of providing retroactive support in forms other than a course release.

·       Paul noted that no applications for Proposal Writing Course Release Awards were received for the October 21st deadline.

·       Paul recounted that Department Chairs were split on the issue of decreasing the lead time for awards. 

·       There was general discussion about the need to decrease the dollar amount for a “major” proposal request.

·       It was agreed that the guidelines would be redrafted for the March round to include the “menu” of support options and to lower the dollar amount for a “major” submission from $25,000 to $15,000.

·       A change to allow Chairs to designate whether a course release could be taken in the semester immediately following the application semester or two semesters later will be added to the guidelines over the summer and the program deadlines will be changed to coincide with the first deadline each semester.  The change to the guidelines to allow retroactive awards will also be made during the summer .

·       The program will be renamed to “Proposal Writing Support Awards.”

·       Jennifer raised the question about combining the Proposal Writing Course Release Awards with the Research Development Awards.

·       Anne is more comfortable keeping the two programs separate since they have different intended purposes and separate funding sources.

 

8.     Research Development Awards

·       Anne noted that Research Development Awards are also being underutilized and queried the Council for their input on the idea of collapsing the Research Development Award program’s two course releases and two $1,000 awards into two larger awards including both a course release and $1,000 for research expenses, and to allow for a “menu” of support options similarly to the Proposal Writing Course Release Awards.  This would effectively create two large awards for research development.

·      There was extensive discussion on this issue and the Council is generally supportive of this idea.

·       Anne noted that there might still be a need for separate $1,000 Research Development Awards to supplement Incentive Grants funds for projects with funding needs in the $1,500 to $2,500 range, and that it might be possible to budget for these as well.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm.  

Submitted by Paul J. Pacheco and Anne Baldwin.

 

Minutes: Student Affairs Committee

15 November 2011

 

Attendance and subcommittee assignments (with revisions) are reported in Table 1. Guests included Leonard Sancilio, Dean of Students and Tyler Ocon, Student Association Vice President.

 

Chair Dan Repinski called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm. He reported that Paul McLaughlin was taking a leave of absence from the committee.

 

Agenda:

Dr. Lenny Sancilio - “Primer on Code of Conduct and Policies and Procedures related to Student Conduct.” He explained that elements of the code that define academic expectations are known. Social and behavioral expectations are less well known – students are required to affirm ‘knowledge’ of the Code in order to be allowed to register. The Code tries not to look at any one infraction. He went on to say that the Code encompasses any other relevant policy of the college including violation of the law on campus or off.

 

According to Dr. Sancilio, alcohol violations are most related to the question of ‘amnesty.’ The discipline process does not follow a “cookbook” method. The Code does not say what a specific penalty will be, but allows for consideration of what has been learned about a specific situation. Issues of amnesty are a moot point because a discipline committee that reviews infractions has leeway to be lenient.

 

Attention was drawn to the first paragraph of the code. Dr. Sancilio pointed out that the code is a model that many colleges follow, was reviewed two years ago for compliance with C A S standards, and has been approved by SUNY legal counsel. A brief history regarding the development of the current Code was offered; it was noted that specific sections of the Code, such as with respect to hazing, were added due to Chancellor mandate. Dr. Sancilio thought a paragraph could be added on sexual assault.

 

A question was asked about how students had access to the code. Written copies are no longer provided and there had to be proof that everyone had access. The group was told of different methods including the college bulletin.

C A S standards apply to the Code and discipline systems/processes. If there are concerns or if anyone does not believe the process or outcome are fair, a review can be done. Anytime a change is made to the Code, there has to be a review with SUNY legal counsel and approval by the College Council.

 

SAC members expressed concerns about students being uninformed about the Code, the discipline process, and their rights. Discussion ensued regarding students’ fear of disciplinary actions and how this may prevent students from acting like a Good Samaritan. Sancilio replied that the Office of the Dean of Students has long advocated that students “stand up” and care for each other, the Code allows for discretion to be employed, and the right time must be picked to inform students regarding the policy.

 

Attention was drawn to other colleges such as Old Westbury, SUNY Binghamton or Fredonia which are purported to have a policy on medical amnesty. It is understood by some that students are not reporting emergencies because of fear of discipline. SAC members identified as a goal to look at ‘amnesty’ policies within SUNY and propose a revision to the Code that is Geneseo specific.

 

Additional points of discussion: the SAC was cautioned against writing multiple revision proposals; ultimately, it is not okay to violate the law; in all discipline-relevant situations, mitigating circumstances will be taken into consideration; the Code does not say what “will be taken” but “what can be taken.” A reminder was given that a student who placed an emergency call on behalf of another student will not get in trouble for making the call, but may be disciplined for actions that violate the Code.

 

A reminder was also given about the role of the Senate and when a recommendation is accepted by the Senate.

 

Questions and answers then turned to transportation of students to/from Geneseo in emergency situations and in situations wherein evidence is to be collected for possible criminal proceedings. There is a concern about students transporting students. And, in general, College staff are not allowed to transport students. Emergency response is provided by local First Responder corps and emergency transportation to hospitals is provided by local ambulance corps.

 

The SAC thanked Dr. Sancilio for the wide-ranging and informative discussion; it was noted that additional conversations could prove to be valuable.

 

Dan reported that on November 2, 2011 he met with Sal Simonetti, Chief, University Police Department. The Chief reviewed recent changes to NYS law regarding medical amnesty and Good Samaritan actions. (Copies of the NYS law and UPD Policy changes were distributed to the SAC.) It was noted that ‘sexual assault’ was absent from the drop-down menu on the university police website for anonymous reporting of an incident. The drop-down menu was subsequently updated.

 

Dan reported that on November 9, 2011 he met with Dr. Bob Bonfiglio, VP, Student and Campus Life and the two had a wide-ranging discussion. Dr. Bonfiglio reports being interested in changing some elements of the culture on campus and changing perceptions of many regarding the College on some important issues.

1)  Medical Amnesty Policy/Good Samaritan: Bob has drafted a statement of principles and intends to post a statement regarding an “Ethos of Care” on the Stand-Up website. The statement is currently under review and will be revised further. A copy of the draft was distributed to the SAC. Bob noted that change to NYS law and commitment to best practices may warrant a change to the Code of Conduct and local procedures. He currently is consulting with legal counsel and reviewing possible options

2)  Campus Response to Sexual Assault: on-going review of policies and procedures continues; changes to Code of Conduct were recently made in order to facilitate compliance with OCR directives; a definition of SA is being drafted and will be proposed for inclusion in the Code of Conduct.

3)  Other: a ‘town-gown’ task force is being created: Jerry Alonzo (Geneseo resident; retired Judge) and Dick Hathaway (Mayor; retired Geneseo faculty) will serve as Co-Chairs.

 

As final business, a motion was made to allow electronic discussions and votes. The motion passed unanimously. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at about 5:15 pm.

 

The next meeting of the SAC will be Tuesday January 17, 2012 in Milne 121.

 

Respectfully Submitted – Joyce Miller

 

 

Last Name

First

Sub Committee

Attendance

Bowersox

Tim

Medical Amnesty

P

Dougherty

Lauren

Campus Response

P

Felter

Kevin

Registration-Chair

P

Ghuman

Abdul

Medical Amnesty

P

Jeong

Hye-Yeon(Julia)

Registration

A

Katz

Jennifer

Campus Resp-Chair

P

Klotz

Marilyn

Campus Response

P

MacKenzie

Doug

Registration

P

Macula

Tony

Campus Response

P

McLaughlin

Paul

Registration

LOA

Miller

Joyce

Registration

P

Repinski

Dan

Chair

P

Rescott

David

Medical Amnesty

P

Simmons

Dayshawn

Medical Amn-Chair

P

Yauney

Alex

Registration

P