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.8

 

 

Bulletin No. 8

Pages 107-114

March 4, 2008

 

Contents

Page Topic

 

108 Agenda: Senate Meeting of March 11, 2008

109 UCC: Descriptions of Proposed Course Changes for Senate Consideration 3/11/08

111 UPC: Policy Proposal Regarding Syllabus Distribution for Senate Consideration 3/11/08

111 Minutes of the Undergraduate Policy Committee Meeting of February 13, 2008

113 Minutes of Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting of February 5, 2008


Agenda for the Senate Meeting of March 11, 2008

Call to Order

Adoption of the Agenda

UFS Sustainability Conference Presentation

Senate Reports

President Christopher Dahl

Provost Kate Conway-Turner

Chair David Granger

Vice Chair Dennis Showers

Past-Chair Dennis Showers

Treasurer Linda Ware

University Faculty Senator Maria Lima

Vice President, Student Assoc. Jarah Magan

 

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curricula Robert Owens

 

UCC Proposes for First Reading

New course (Listed on page 109)

Thea 224, Acting Techniques: (Subtitle)

 

Course revision (Listed on page 109)

PlSc 327, Terrorism and National Security

 

Course deletions (Listed on page 109)

Comm 135, Introduction to communication Theory

Hist 252, African-American History Since Reconstruction

Hist 255, The Frontier Experience

Hist 269, Mini:

Hist 389, Honors Research/Writing

Thea 220, Speech in Theatre

Thea 240, Stage management

 

Revision of Majors (Listed on page 110)

B.A. in Communication

B.A. in Theater

B.S in BioChemistry

B.S. in Biophysics

 

Revision of Minor (Listed on page 110)

Human Development Minor

 

Revision of Concentration (Listed on page 110)

Women’s Studies

Concentration in Mathematics for BA in Education

 

 

UCC Proposes for Second Reading

New courses (Bulletin #7, p.96)

Anth 236, Forensic Anthropology

Psyc 278, Psychology of Happiness

Psyc 280, Sport and Exercise psychology

 

Course deletions (Bulletin #7, pp.96-97)

Acct 396, Small Business Institute Seminar

Econ 105, S/Government & The Economy

Econ 396, Small Business Institute Seminar

Educ 100, College Reading Techniques

Educ 321, Audio-Visual Appr to Learning

Educ 322, Teaching of Elementary School Math

Educ 341, Methodological App-Soc Sci Educ

Educ 372, Educ Measurement & Evaluation

GSci 371, Geology Field Study

H&PE 102, Beginning Swimming

H&PE 133, Volleyball

H&PE 137, Water Polo

H&PE 139, Team Handball

H&PE 227, Advanced Golf

H&PE 244, Adv Figure Skating

H&PE 246, Adv Downhill Skiing

Hist 247, Fascism & World War II: 1919-45

Hist 283, US World & Vietnam:1954-75

Intd 225, Intro to Cognitive Science

Mgmt 396, Small Business Institute Seminar

Sped 268, Manual Comm & Instr Strategies

Undergraduate Policies Ed Wallace

 


 

UPC Proposal Regarding Syllabus Distribution Policy--First Reading (p.111)

Graduate Academic Affairs Susan Salmon

GCC Proposes for Second Reading

New course (Bulletin #7, p.97)

CSCD 449: Speech and Language Disorders in Diverse Populations

 

Student Affairs Denise Scott

Faculty Affairs Joan Zook

 

Old Business

New Business

Adjournment

 

 

UCC Proposal Descriptions

Actual proposals can be accessed at http://boxes.geneseo.edu/outboxes/DeanOfCollege/doc/UCC_pending/

 

New course

Thea 224, Acting Techniques: (Subtitle)

Practical exercises in vocal and/or physical techniques for actors designed to complement the acting curriculum in Thea 221, 320, 330, and 340. May be repeated for a total of 4 credits.

 

Course revision

PlSc 327 (to 347), Terrorism and National Security

 

Course deletion

Comm 135, Introduction to communication Theory

Hist 252, African-American History Since Reconstruction

Hist 255, The Frontier Experience

Hist 269, Mini:

Hist 389, Honors Research/Writing

Thea 220, Speech in Theatre

Thea 240, Stage management

 

Revision of Major

B.A. in Communication

  • Change from two to three academic “tracks” or concentrations: Personal and Professional Communication, or Journalism and Media, or Intercultural and Critical Studies.

  • Delete Communication Theory course from 12 hour required core and add a required course specific to the track.

  • Students enrolled in the Intercultural and Critical Studies track have the opportunity to pursue a dual-degree program with Moscow State University emphasizing language development and communication practices across cultures.

  • Majors who declare the Intercultural and Critical Studies track and apply to spend a full year of study at Moscow State University during their junior year must complete additional courses in Anthropology and attain intermediate level proficiency in Russian.

B.A. in Theater

  • Change major requirement from 42 to 43 credit hours

  • Change basic requirements from 30 to 31 hours

  • Add choice of Thea 200 or 204 or Engl 386, 354, 355, or 381 to fulfill 3 credits under basic requirements

  • Delete Thea 399, 220, and 240 from electives

  • Add Thea 224, 290, 393 and 399 to electives

B.S in BioChemistry

  • Change from 53 to 53 or 54 hours for some students.

  • Delete Biol 118 and 120 labs

  • Add Biol 116 lab

  • Add Biol 304 and Biol 390 as choices for 7 credits of Biology

  • Delete Chem 362

  • Add Chem 342

  • Delete Chem 212 and 214 labs

  • Add Chem 216 lab

  • Add Math 228 as choice for 19 credits in Mathematics, Physics, and Computer Science

  • Add Biol 301 and/or Chem 301 labs. Previously an either-or choice

  • Add Biol 250, Math 262, and Psyc 250 to elective choices

B.S. in Biophysics

  • Change from 78-79 to 79-80 hours for some students.

  • Students need to take the biology sequence Biol 117, 119 (as before) but now take the new Biol 116 (2 credits) lab in place of the two one-credit labs Biol 118 and Biol 120. Students also now need to take Chem 216 (2 credits) instead of Chem 212 (1 credit), which was eliminated by the Chemistry department. This change results in one additional credit hour to the major.

 

Revision of Minor

Human Development Minor

  • Add Anth 202, Psyc 357, Socl 241, 314, 333, and 356 to electives

  • Delete Anth 302, 306, and 328, and Socl 352 from electives

 

Revision of Concentration

Women’s Studies

  • Change from 30 hours overall with 27 elective courses to 15 required hours and 15 elective

  • Add WmSt 100, 201, 210, 220, and 395 or 399 to required courses

  • Delete AmSt 201, Engl 241, 250, 267, 321, 324, 343, and 358, Psyc 308, Thea 305 and 390 and WmSt 201 from elective courses

Concentration in Mathematics for BA in Education

  • Delete Math 237

 

UPC Proposal Regarding Syllabus Distribution Policy

The policies that govern teaching, advisement, and other faculty activities are detailed in the Undergraduate Bulletin and the College's Policies and Procedures. Currently, the statement regarding syllabi reads as follows (/dean_office/classroom_policies)

 

Syllabus
The College Senate adopted the following syllabus policy effective Fall 1997:
"Each faculty member is required to prepare for each course an outline, subject to reasonable changes as circumstances demand, which will contain the following information and will be distributed to the students during the first week of the semester:

1. an outline of the sequence of the course and the topics to be covered in the course;
2. a reading list, texts, and/or materials required;
3. grading procedures;
4. test dates including date and time of the final examination [see "Master Schedule" and "Final Exam Sessions" below];
5. schedules for assignments, experiments, and projects;
6. descriptions and due dates of papers the student will write for the course.

Copies of the course outline shall also be placed in department files." See also Academic Affairs, Section XII of Policies and Procedures.

 

On 14 November 2000, the Senate passed, at second reading, an amendment to this policy that required a “paper copy” of each to be distributed to each class.

 

UPC makes the following motion to replace the current syllabus policy:

 

Syllabus

Each faculty member is required to prepare for each course an outline (or syllabus) subject to reasonable changes as circumstances demand, which will contain the following information and will be made available (as either a paper copy or an electronic version) to the students during the first week of the semester:

 

1. an outline of the sequence of the course and the topics to be covered in the course;

2. a reading list, texts, and/or materials required;

3. grading procedures;

4. test dates including date and time of the final examination;

5. schedules for assignments, experiments, and projects;

6. descriptions and due dates of papers the student will write for the course.

 

Students who request a paper copy of the syllabus will be provided with one by the instructor.

 

Copies of the course outline shall also be placed in department files." See also Academic Affairs, Section XII of Policies and Procedures.

 

 

Undergraduate Policy Committee

Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2008

Present: E. Wallace (chair), B. Welker, D. Raynor, D. Aagesen, S. Giorgis, F. Shiekh, D. Dezarn, D. Campbell, C. Tesler, B. See

 

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 1:30 PM.

 

The lone item of business involved a request from A. Sheldon (Geological Sciences) to revisit a policy passed by Senate in 2000 that required paper copies of course outlines (i.e. syllabi) to be distributed to all students. Given the sustainability initiative being implemented on campus, Sheldon suggested that the time might be right to encourage faculty to make syllabi available in electronic form.

 

A brief discussion ensued and there was consensus that any student who requested a paper copy should be accommodated by the instructor.

 

The policies that govern teaching, advisement, and other faculty activities are detailed in the Undergraduate Bulletin and the College's Policies and Procedures. Currently, the statement regarding syllabi reads as follows (/dean_office/classroom_policies)

 

Syllabus
The College Senate adopted the following syllabus policy effective Fall 1997:
"Each faculty member is required to prepare for each course an outline, subject to reasonable changes as circumstances demand, which will contain the following information and will be distributed to the students during the first week of the semester:

1. an outline of the sequence of the course and the topics to be covered in the course;
2. a reading list, texts, and/or materials required;
3. grading procedures;
4. test dates including date and time of the final examination [see "Master Schedule" and "Final Exam Sessions" below];
5. schedules for assignments, experiments, and projects;
6. descriptions and due dates of papers the student will write for the course.

Copies of the course outline shall also be placed in department files." See also Academic Affairs, Section XII of Policies and Procedures.

 

On 14 November 2000, the Senate passed, at second reading, an amendment to this policy that required a “paper copy” of each to be distributed to each class.

 

D. Raynor offered, and S. Giorgis seconded, the following motion to replace the current syllabus policy:

 

Syllabus

Each faculty member is required to prepare for each course an outline (or syllabus) subject to reasonable changes as circumstances demand, which will contain the following information and will be made available (as either a paper copy or an electronic version) to the students during the first week of the semester:

 

1. an outline of the sequence of the course and the topics to be covered in the course;

2. a reading list, texts, and/or materials required;

3. grading procedures;

4. test dates including date and time of the final examination;

5. schedules for assignments, experiments, and projects;

6. descriptions and due dates of papers the student will write for the course.

 

Students who request a paper copy of the syllabus will be provided with one by the instructor.

 

Copies of the course outline shall also be placed in department files." See also Academic Affairs, Section XII of Policies and Procedures.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Ed Wallace

Chair

 

Faculty Affairs Committee

Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2008

Present: J. Zook (chair), L. Blackman, B. Colon, J. Lovett, J. F. Morse, P. MacLean, J. McLean, L. O’Brien, A. Stanley, H. Waddy, K. Conway-Turner (guest)

 

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 4:01 PM.

 

  1. Provost Conway-Turner was welcomed to the meeting. She was asked a variety of questions about (1) the process used to determine salary adjustments last semester, (2) faculty promotion processes, (3) the role of task forces in campus governance.

 

2. Salary Adjustment

  1.  
    • The first question had to do with which faculty activities on the evaluation form were used to determine merit. There was concern that the form measured breadth, not depth. Provost Conway-Turner explained that 22 questions were asked, 8 addressing teaching, 8 addressing research, and 6 re service. The Geneseo form was based on the Delaware Productivity Study which is used across the country. It was developed by the Provost, then sent out to department heads for feedback, then modified to the present 22-item scale. The scale was then used by Chairs or Deans using the materials they used for the DSI. The score was cumulative so the faculty member did not have to be excellent across all three areas. When scores came in, they were reviewed and “cut generously” (at 11 & above) for merit.

    • A related question was whether both merit and prior salary were considered and the answer is yes, but only to determine eligibility. The faculty member in question had to be below the CUPA median for his/her rank and discipline to be considered. The faculty member in question also had to meet a minimal threshold on the evaluation form to be considered.

    • A question was asked about whether this process will be repeated next year and the Provost responded that it’s “not looking good” at this time but lobbying is occurring to try to get back some pieces.

    • Will DSI money be used for salary adjustment? By itself, the DSI money is not enough for a salary adjustment. This is a contract issue; if we have DSI money plus additional money, salary adjustments will be looked at.

    • Will the form used for the salary adjustment be the standard form for DSI? The Provost said she hadn’t thought about using it.

    • One committee member noted that of the 22 items on the scale only one addressed publishing; she was concerned that this sends the message that publishing isn’t so important. Kate found, in her review of the forms, that if someone did well in one area, they did well across all areas. She also reminded us that the form is a “threshold” for good work, and she found that it was successful in doing that.

    • Another committee member identified two things she found disconcerting: (1) the process used to complete the merit evaluations was different across departments and (2) there was at least one case where a new hire got a raise when those who had been here for years did not. Kate acknowledged that the system isn’t perfect and that probably some people were disadvantaged by it. She noted that both rank and years in rank were addressed; divided by those in rank 0-4 years and those who were in rank more than 4 years. CUPA doesn’t address years in rank so Kate created a two-step process.

    • Another question was, how detailed was the information Chairs got? It was suggested that a systematic, step-by-step process might help. Kate said this might work in the future but cautioned that differences across disciplines must be considered. However, we could standardize for clarity & communicate this to the faculty. Kate reiterated that this was a step in the right direction but isn’t perfect.

    • How successful was the salary adjustment at getting Geneseo’s salaries to the mean? Kate said that those with more than four years at rank got to the mean; those with 0-4 years at rank got to 75% of mean.

 

  1. Promotion Questions

  • Is there a policy about number of years at rank before being promoted? Kate: typically five years in rank at Associate before going up for Full, and six years at the Assistant level before going up for tenure and promotion to Associate.

  • Is an outside evaluation required? Yes, from at least two external reviewers for promotion from Associate to Full.

  • Can members of the Departmental Personnel Committee vote if they’re not at rank but are tenured? Kate noted that there are differing departmental policies, but typically the whole unit can vote. She would expect at least one person to be at rank, but isn’t always so. This should be decided by each department; it is not University policy.

  • Does it have to be in by-laws? No, but see the Provost there are concerns about department policies.

  • What about early promotion (that is, before tenure)? It is possible if person has been in rank for at least five years.

 

  1. Task Forces

    • The committee asked about the role of appointed task forces fit in with the jobs of senate and standing committees in the campus governance. Specifically, since the Curriculum Task Force is appointed; how does that work with elected committees whose roles overlap? The Provost said regular Senate committees have a role and a set of responsibilities. Task Forces are broader than committees and also bounded by a time frame. Their members are solicited from the Senate; are trying to have representation across many bodies and disciplines.

    • Two suggestions were made in response: (a) have Task Forces report on the Senate floor and (b) perhaps we should write up guidelines for Task Forces. Kate thought this might be a good idea but raised a couple of cautions. Another question was about how/if Task Force recommendations are implemented. Kate noted that it depended on the nature of the recommendation & time is also a factor.

    • A question was raised about whether everything had to go through Senate, but Kate said some things do not. If there’s something to talk about, we discuss it together and educate each other. There is a perception some have that Senate is losing power and Task Forces have more power to make decisions; the suggestion was made that we open the process up a little to decrease the perception of undue power being held within Task Forces.

 

  1. Chair Zook announced that the next Committee meeting will be held on 4 March, at 4 pm, in Union 325. We will be discussing issues related to revising the faculty evaluation form. Chair Zook asked us to look over the handouts (chapters 2 & 8 from the Arreola book) in preparation for the next meeting.

 

Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Leigh O’Brien