College Senate Bulletin

State University of New York at Geneseo

College of Arts and Sciences


Correspondence to Dennis Showers, School of Education, South 222C,, 245-5264

Bulletin No. 10

Pages 128-148

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

April 17, 2007


Page Topic

128 Minutes from the Graduate Affairs Committee Meeting 9 March 2007

128 Minutes of the All-College Meeting 20 March 2007

129 Minutes of the College Senate Meeting 20 March 2007

140 Minutes of the Research Council Meeting 23 March 2007

142 Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting 3 April 2007

147 Agenda of the College Senate Meeting 24 April 2007

148 Agenda of the 2007-2008 College Senate Meeting 24 April 2007

Correspondence: Dennis Showers, School of Education

South 222C-- e-mail: 245-5264


Minutes from Graduate Affairs Committee

Electronic meeting

3/7/07 – 3/9/07


The Committee was scheduled to meet on 3/6/07. Due to inclement weather, the College closed and the Committee was unable to meet. A message went out to all members on 3/7/07 asking them to vote on using electronic balloting for the motions to approve the course proposals for CDSC 420, CDSC 582*, CDSC 583 and the Program Revision – Masters of Arts in Speech-Language Pathology.


The request to vote by email went out at 10:29 a.m. on 3/7/07 asking for responses by 4:00 p.m. on 3/7/07. Those responding were listed as present for the meeting.


Those present were: Susan Salmon, Mary McCrank, Ian Alam, Irene Belyakov, Terry Bazette, Koomi Kim, Jordan Kleiman, Paul Pacheco, Lee Schiffel, Sherry Schwartz, Kelly Griffin, Kelly Owens, Leigh O’Brien, Colleen Garrity.


The motion to have an electronic ballot was passed unanimously.


Members of the committee were sent out an electronic ballot on 3/7/07 at 4:23 p.m. and asked to return the ballot by 3/9/07 at 5:00 p.m. A quorum was determined to be at least one-half of the committee members casting their votes by email by the deadline. The ballot included the following motions:


Susan Salmon moved changes in the following course: CDSC 420, CDSC 582 and CDSC 583. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.


Susan Salmon moved the changes in the program proposal: Masters of Arts in Speech-Language Pathology. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.


Respectfully submitted,

Susan Salmon


*CDSC 582 is officially described on the Dean’s Office web site as CDSC 581.


Minutes of the All-College Meeting

20 March 2007


D. Aagesen, I. Alam, L. Argentieri, M. Bagel, S. Bailey, T. Bazzett, I. Belyakov, J. Bergersen, S. Brainard, C. Brown, P. Case, J. Chester, R. Coloccia, K. Conway-Turner, C. Dahl, R. Doggett, J. Dolce, G. Drake, L. Garland, C. Garrity, E. Gillin, S. Giorgis, B. Gohlman, D. Granger, K. Griffin, A. Gu, K. Hannam, W. Harrison, A. Herman, D. Hill, K. Hinman, J. Kleiman, M. Lima, J. Lovett, D. Mackenzie, J. Magan, K. Mapes, C. Matthews, M. McCrank, R. McKnight, J. McLean, B. Morgan, J. Morse, O. Nicodemi, M. Nolan, L. O'Brien, P. Pacheco, T. Paradis, B. Reilly, D. Robertson, C. Rowley, S. Salmon, L. Schiffel, D. Scott, C. Shin, D. Showers, M. Stolee, G. Towsley, E. Wallace, A. Weibel, B. Welker, J. Williams, Y. Zhang, L. Zipp, J. Zook


GUESTS: S. Edgar, E.R. Johnson, S. West

Call to Order


Chair Showers Called the All-College Meeting to Order at 4.05PM.

Adoption of the Agenda Distributed by Chair’s email of 3/15/2007

I. Call to Order

II. Presentation of candidates for election by the Nominations Committee

III. Nominations from the floor

IV. Adjournment

The agenda was approved unanimously.

Nominations Committee Bill Gohlman presented candidates for Senate.

Senate Officers

Vice-Chair: Yangxiang Anthony Gu (School of Business)

Treasurer: L. Ware (School of Education)

There was no nomination for Secretary yet.

Gohlman called for nominations from the floor. There were no additional nominations.

Nominees for Senators-at-Large, over six years (vote for six):

W. Gohlman (History)

J. Lovett (Biology)

J. Morse (School of Education)

P. Pacheco (Anthropology)

S. Schwartz (School of Education)

A. Sheldon (Geology)

M. Stolee (History)

Nominees for Senators-at-Large, 1-6 Years (vote for three)

L. O’Brien (School of Education)

R. Ornelas (School of the Arts)

D. Robertson (Geography)

Gohlman called for further nominations. Hearing none, he closed nominations.

[The All-College Meeting ended without a formal adjournment.]

Minutes of the College Senate Meeting

20 March 2007

Call to Order

Chair Showers called the Senate to order at 4.08PM.

Adoption of the Agenda (College Senate Bulletin #9, p.123)

The agenda was adopted without corrections or additions.

Adoption of the Minutes of February 27, 2007 (Bulletin #9, pp. 120-123)

The minutes of the previous meeting were adopted without corrections or additions.

Senate Reports

President’s Report

President's Report

1. Along with D. Aagenen (Geography), President Dahl recently traveled to the Netherlands to sign an agreement with the University of Groningen. The University has a good faculty of arts and strong science AND SOCIAL SCIENCE programs. It is a great exchange location and great institution. Enroute, Dahl also visited at the University of Manchester, home of former Geneseo Professor Laura Doan. Manchester is hiring significant names to its Faculty (their critical theorist is Terry Eagleton from Oxford) and are about to hire the novelist Martin Amis; it is positioning itself as the premiere university in the North of England.  Geneseo will also explore the possibility of an exchange agreement with Manchester.   

2.  My Hang Huynh, a 1991 alumna of our chemistry department has won the coveted E.O. Lawrence Award from the U.S. Department of Energy for outstanding research in Chemistry throughout all Federal agencies.

3. On Thursday, Chancellor Ryan will visit campus. He will present a GOLD Leadership Seminar and also tour the new Integrated Science Building. He likes to meet and talk with Faculty and Administration, so there will be an open house in the atrium of the Integrated Science Center from 10-11AM to meet him. He will also meet with Student leaders at lunch and will make a presentation that afternoon to business leaders in Rochester. As Ryan is leaving his position soon, Dahl said that we will miss him; he has been an excellent Chancellor who appreciates Geneseo’s unique role in American Higher Education.   

4. Both the State Assembly and Senate have completed budgets in addition to the original Executive Budget from the Governor.  In the Assembly Budget, $13 million was added for Access money, and the Senate added $10 million, over the Governor's amount. The Assembly added $2 million for high-need programs, but the Senate offered none. For EOC, the Assembly provided $10 million; meanwhile, the Senate added a million for Small Business Center Programs and a little for EOP.

Having cut $9 million from the Budget, the Assembly will recommend that indirect cost recovery money from the Research Foundation cover that shortfall; Dahl did not think that this is a good idea and believes the Research Council would strongly concur. 

Total additions (rounded figures) in the Executive Budget are $53.8 million; in the Assembly, $62.3; and in the Senate $57.9.

Dahl, Robert Wayland Smith, College Council Chair, Presidential Executive Assistant B. Glass, and Student Association leaders traveled to Albany and met with our local delegations to make our case for additional funding, especially for Excellence funds. The end result will be some additions in the Faculty Line area; we will probably end up with something close to the Governor's Budget and a little more. This is better than other years, but not ideal.

5. SUNY Presidents recently went to Washington to meet with Senators and area Congressional Representatives. We are asking for $2.5 million approximately in federal earmarks for scientific equipment. Our top priority was last year's almost-funded proposal, a Fourier transform NMR spectrometer; we also have requested a tunneling microscope. Big-ticket science items seem most appropriate for Federal grants. 

6. We are commencing two key searches for the future of the College. B. Glass will staff the Committee searching for a Vice-President for Advancement ; D. Hill has done a good job as Interim Vice-President. R. Finkelstein (English), who chairs the CAS Board, is leading the search to replace CAS Director E. Abbott, who has announced his retirement, effective December 2007.

7. Dahl also commended two upcoming intellectual opportunities: 

First, we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of our signature program of the Core Curriculum, the Western Humanities I and II requirement. The first set of Humanities courses were first taught 25 years ago this past fall.

As part of this commemoration, we will be hosting one of the most distinguished Shakespeare scholars, David Bevington from the University of Chicago. Bevington will deliver a lecture entitled "Hamlet's Two Fathers" on Tuesday, 27 March at 5PM in Newton 214. Bevington is a great literary scholar and also someone interested presenting the humanities to general audiences.

On the previous day, we also plan a panel of alumni to speak on the effect of the Humanities requirement on their lives. 

Second, the President's annual Diversity Lecture will take place on Tuesday, 3 April at 3.30PM in the College Union Ballroom.  Dr Troy Duster, former President of the American Sociological Association and former Board Chair of the American Association of Colleges at Universities will speak. Duster is the author of Backdoor to Eugenics and co-author of The Myth of a Color-Blind Society. One of the most distinguished sociologists in the country, Professor Duster holds endowed chairs at both Berkeley and NYU.

Duster has an interesting lineage; his grandmother was Ida B. Wells, one of the first major African American woman journalists and a civil rights activist.

Provost’s Report

1. Provost Conway-Turner announced that the College has just signed an agreement with Angel as our Learning Management System. This will be available next fall. CIT and TLC will be preparing this for us; some Faculty will be early adopters this summer. Next fall, there will be workshops and sessions on using Angel. The system will allow Faculty to put up course work, quizzes, extra information, reserved readings, etc.

The Provost thanked the Teaching Learning Center for bringing various course management vendors to campus and helping us make the decision. SUNY, by the way, has signed an agreement with Angel, making this more affordable for us.

2. The Provost hoped to see everyone at GREAT day on 17 April to celebrate scholarship and creativity from students.

Chair’s Report

No report.

Vice Chair’s Report

No report.

Past Chair’s Report

No report.

Treasurer’s Report

K. Mapes reported a balance of $1198.24.

University Faculty Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman said that the University Senate would have its next meeting on 27-28 April at SUNY Brockport’s downtown Rochester facility.

Student Association Vice President’s Report

No report.

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

Committee Chair M. Stolee moved the following by blocks, summarizing courses by prefix:

New Courses: Second Reading

CHEM 342: Modern Analytical Chemistry Laboratory

GEOG 363: M/The Geography of Africa

HONR 206: Honors Seminar: (subtitle)

HONR 207: Honors Seminar in Diversity, Pluralism, Difference: (subtitle)

HONR 210: Independent Honors Service Project

MATH 262: Applied Statistics

G. Towsley moved to separate Honors 210 from other courses from consideration. The motion was seconded.

The other courses were passed unanimously.

Towsley explained that the number 210 cannot be used; the course must appear as HONR 211. With this correction, the Second Reading for this course passed unanimously.

Revised Courses: Second Reading

ARTH 201: Ancient to Byzantine Art: Religion and Philosophy

ARTH 202: Crusaders, Saints, and Sinners: Art and Spirituality in Medieval Europe

ARTH 203: Renaissance Europe: Rebirth of Classical Culture

ARTH 213: High Renaissance and Mannerisms in Europe

ARTH 281: Pre-Columbian and Latin American Art

ARTH 284: Asian Art: The Spiritual Traditions of India, China and Japan

ARTH 285: Issues in Contemporary Art

ARTH 300: Major Artists and Issues

ARTH 305: Italian and Northern Renaissance Art

ARTH 310: Women and Art

ARTH 384: Baroque Art in Italy, Spain, France and The Netherlands

ARTH 386: Theories of Art History

BIOL 235: Disease and the Developing World

BIOL 390: Biological Techniques: Molecular Techniques

CDSC 337: Applied Skills in Audio logy

CHEM 212: Organic Chemistry Laboratory

CHEM 301: Elementary Biochemistry Laboratory

CHEM 313: Laboratory Techniques in Organic Chemistry I

CHEM 331: Laboratory Techniques in Inorganic Chemistry I

CHEM 340: Modern Analytical Chemistry

CHEM 361: Advanced Physical/Instrumental/Analytical Laboratory I

CSCI 115: Digital Futures, Human Futures

HONR 203: Honors Seminar in the Social Sciences

HONR 204: Honors Seminar in the Fine Arts

HONR 205: Honors Seminar in the Sciences

HONR 393: Honors Thesis

PLSC 318: Constitutional Law

PLSC 319: Constitutional Rights and Liberties

PLSC 329: Politics of Russia and Eurasia

The motion passed unanimously.

Deleted Courses: Second Reading

ANTH 238: Second Language Acquisition and Culture

CHEM 362: Advanced Physical/Instrumental/Analytical Laboratory II

The motion passed unanimously.

Revised Programs: Second Reading

BA in Art Studio

BA in Biology

BS in Biology

Integrated Marketing Communications minor

BA in chemistry

BS in Chemistry

BA in Computer Science

IR Major

IR Minor

BA in Physics

BS in Applied Physics

BA in Political Science

The motion passed unanimously.

Revised Courses: First Reading

COMN 102: Principles of Communication

Math 262: Applied Statistics.

The motion passed unanimously.

Deleted Courses: First Reading

ENGL 100: College Writing I

The motion passed unanimously.

Revised Programs: First Reading

Honors Program

From College Senate Bulletin #9, pp.125-26

Honors Program. Revision: The Honors Program at Geneseo is a scholarship program carefully designed to enrich the undergraduate education of a small number of dedicated and accomplished students. The program offers designated honors courses, research opportunities, and close work with honors advisors to guarantee program coherence. Twenty students are admitted into the program each year. Half of this number are entering freshmen. The remainder, with a possible rare exception, are sophomores when they begin the program. Each spring the Honors Program Committee reviews the records of entering freshmen for evidence of seriousness of purpose, academic ability, and academic accomplishments. The committee then invites those selected to enter the program at that time. The committee issues the remaining invitations after a similar review of students already in attendance at the college. Incoming freshmen must have a high school average of at least 95 and minimum SAT scores of 1350 to be considered for the program. Those already in attendance must have earned a grade point average of at least 3.5 and present a minimum of 24 credit hours earned at Geneseo.

Honors students must maintain an overall cumulative grade point average of at least 3.2 at the end of each academic year, with a minimum of 12 credit hours completed each semester. Class size for honors courses will be limited to twenty students in order to focus on discussion, increase one–to–one opportunities between student and instructor, and facilitate rapid evaluation and return of student work. The courses have been designed to enhance habits of critical thought and expression equally necessary to success in one’s career, in one’s private life, and in one’s participation as a citizen in public life.

Geneseo’s Honors Program is designed to enhance the education of a special group of curious, able and motivated students who have a broad range of interests. Application to the program is by invitation from the College Honors Committee only.

Students in the Honors Program take five courses selected from a set of specially designed honors courses that cover a wide range of topics, from art to science and more. These classes are small and emphasize discussion and participation. The program culminates with a six credit honors capstone experience, usually undertaken during the senior year.

Honors students must maintain an overall cumulative grade point average (gpa) of at least 3.4. Each semester, honors students must complete at least 12 hours and earn a gpa no lower than 3.0. Additionally, students must complete HONR 101 and 102 in their first year in the program and take at least one honors course in each subsequent year, until the five required courses are completed. (With prior notification, exceptions are made for study abroad or similar circumstances.)

The Geneseo Honors Program is designed to enhance habits of critical thought and expression, skills equally necessary to success in career, in private life, and in the public life of a citizen.

S. Edgar (Philosophy) read a statement giving historical background to the Honors Program and a reaction to the changes in the program:


The original Honors Program proposal was brought to UAAC and Senate in 1986-7 and included specifics on the size of the program, class size, and an equal number of freshman and sophomore entrants, as well as the program structure and course proposals. It passed UAAC and Senate that way, after considerable discussion, and is the basis of what currently appears in the College Bulletin. Thus changes in the program description (as are proposed) alter the program and should be considered. As Bob Owens pointed out in the UCC meeting (2/13/07), they are changes by omission. Changes in aspects of the program that originally went through UAAC and Senate should go through Senate now as well. The Provost has claimed that the size of the program is strictly an administrative matter, and does not involve Senate; yet the original program description, structure, and size did have Senate review and should have had again. In the minutes of the 2/20/07 Executive Committee, where the concerns about the program changes that had been raised in UCC were reviewed, the Provost said that she had “asked for an analysis” (of increasing the program size); clearly, this must have been a “cost-benefit analysis,” which does not get at the heart of the effect the changes would have on the program itself. I know that the Provost did not consult with faculty who had taught in the program, the students (present and alums), the past director of the program (for 18 years), or even the current directors of the program before making a decision to double the size of the program. I had serious concerns about the effects of the size change on the program (including quality, staffing, maintaining cohorts of learners, and more) and thought the Honors Program Committee would be the appropriate place to raise these concerns, but I was not allowed to raise them in the committee – I was told that the committee had been “charged with shaping a program” for an entering class of double the size and “not charged with deliberating whether or not the program should be doubled.”


Thus, as a private citizen, I sent a letter and a list of “serious concerns” about doubling the size of the program on October 22, 2006; that letter and those concerns have been ignored and not even acknowledged to this day. The Senate should have had the opportunity to discuss and review this program change but, unfortunately, it has gone forward without Senate input and is now in place for the fall semester. So something that should have had Senate review and discussion has been done by administrative fiat, in effect bypassing the Senate. The Constitution says that the College Senate is “empowered to recommend policy relating to matters dealing with the faculty affairs, student affairs, undergraduate affairs, graduate academic affairs, and any other matter of general faculty concern . . . ; to discuss and express its view on any matter deemed to be of general College or University interest; to make such recommendations to the President of the College” and so on. The Senate has been cut out of this process in this case, and I wish to register dismay at that.


The other aspect of the program change (by omission) of concern is changing the ratio of freshmen to sophomore entrants into the program. This is clearly spelled out in the current Bulletin description, which was approved by Senate, and the newly proposed description omits it. The current ratio is 50%/50%. As you were told in the 2/6/07 Senate meeting, the intent is to change it to 75% incoming freshmen, 25% sophomores. This has not yet gone into effect, since not all of the applications are in, and no offers have yet been made for entrance into the program. So one could hope that a Senate input on this could still have an effect. This most definitely is a matter for Senate consideration, since it was a big part of the discussion in 1986. I have reviewed the minutes of those meetings (an Open Hearing, UAAC – both Policy and Curriculum Subcommittees, and Senate), and I have talked with Distinguished Teaching Professors Bill Edgar and Jim Willey, who brought the proposal to Senate, and have communicated with Nancy Kleniewski (who is now the Provost at Bridgewater State College in Massachusetts), who argued strongly on behalf of equal representation of sophomores in the entering class. It is clear that the matter had careful Senate review and discussion, and so any change in this should be reviewed in Senate now. I have consulted with at least seven former Senate Chairs (who were also chairs of UAAC or UCC or Policy at one time) who agree that, if Senate reviewed the initial proposal that was put in place, it is also in the purview of Senate to review any changes in this program description.


The arguments on behalf of equal representation of entering sophomores and freshmen in the program are compelling. Nancy Kleniewski argued that, first, “the program was designed to retain students rather than recruit them” (CSB November 13, 1986, p. 99) and second, that “the senior year in high school is not always a good year to judge academic potential” (p. 100) and there is merit in selecting students based on direct knowledge of their performance in college. It should definitely be a consideration that an honors program can be an important factor in the retention of good students here, and our emphasis should not be skewed so much in favor of recruitment. The Committee can judge entering sophomores in the program based on a whole year’s track record at Geneseo, plus a personal interview. There is just more information to go on in the case of sophomores. And it has proved to be true in the program that the sophomores have, more often than not, outperformed their freshman counterparts (especially in recent years). For example, the average GPA this past semester for sophomore entrants in the program was considerably higher than that for the freshman entrants. Another indicator is that, of the scholarships given since 2003 based on merit to juniors in the program, for their senior year, 61.5% were awarded to students who entered the program as sophomores, 38.5% to those who entered as freshmen. Further, the sophomores in each new class have performed a very valuable mentoring service to the new freshmen, and this effect would be seriously undercut in entering classes that were only ¼ sophomores. The students currently in the Honors Program feel very strongly about keeping the ratio even, and they communicated this to the Provost both through their instructors in Honors classes in the fall semester and through a letter sent several weeks ago, outlining arguments for their position; they have received no response or acknowledgement to date.


Thus I urge the Senate to take up the issue of the ratio of sophomore to freshman entrants to the program, which clearly was an issue introduced and seriously argued in the original Honors Program proposal that went through Senate. I realize that the Senate is only advisory to the President, but it should at least have the opportunity to give such advice in areas under its purview. It is very rare when such advice is not followed, and it is quite noteworthy when it was not followed.


In response, the Provost said that she was certainly not denying the history of how the Honors Program started and the fact that it has brought in excellent students. But as we have reviewed honors programs across the country, we know these come in different sizes, and ours is one of the smallest. Entering students cannot take advantage of the programs. The Provost did commission an analysis which found that many students not in the Honors Program out-perform Honors Students.

In future, as we move ahead to become an Honors College, we will no longer need an Honors Program. And as we move towards the Honors College goal, we will need to increase the size of the program. Moving from 20 to 40 is not much and is not as big as other programs. In any event, the size is an administrative decision, not a Senate decision. Yet the Provost said she has consulted with constituencies and studied models of excellent programs elsewhere that could work here. A different mix of freshmen and sophomores could work; there is no “magical mix” of the two groups. We want to continue to attract high-quality students, and the Provosts wants to see more freshmen in the program.

The Provost reiterated that she understood that the size of the Honors Program was discussed twenty years ago. But that is not to say it is a Senate decision. This decision is based on resource information and the nature of the institution. The Provost appreciated all the comments that she has heard about this issue.

O. Nicodemi (Mathematics) allowed that she could expatiate on the academic reasons for the mix of freshmen and sophomores and for the increase. But she emphasized that the proposal before the Senate was strictly academic, not defining the ratio of sophomores to freshmen. Whatever the size of the program turns out to be, the Senate was voting today about a few extra revised courses. This proposal would have come before Senate even without the changes that the Provost is pursuing. Once the proposal is in place—or not—we can go on to talk about the issues of size and ratio.

W. Gohlman (History) said that since we are debating size and ratio, we should have a motion to debate. He moved to add to the first paragraph of the program revision the following statement:

Half of the number admitted are entering first-year students. The remainder, with a possible rare exception, are sophomores when they begin the program.

The motion was seconded.

In the discussion following, the Provost noted that there is no such language in the description of the Honors Program.

J. Chester (Student Senator) said that when the Provost had spoken earlier about the number of students, he agreed that we should change the number. But why the larger number of freshmen? The Provost responded that there are many different models at various colleges. In some programs, Honors students enter as freshmen. The 30-10 mix, in our case, recognizes the freshmen who cannot get into the program, preserving the number that come in already as sophomores. This is a compromise plan.

O. Nicodemi noted that, in Edgar’s discussion, the original motivation of the 10-10 split of freshmen and sophomores was to retain students rather than attract them. That rationale is now gone. Second, there is an academic rationale: the current program is designed for freshmen entrants; the first two courses are frosh courses; the entering frosh take HONR 102 rather than INTD 105. The Social Science and Fine Arts courses are core courses, but sophomores entering Honors courses sometimes have already taken core courses, anyway. Nicodemi said she would love to see more sophomores enter the program; they are fantastic. But she would like to design a different ramp for sophomore entrants—and right now, we do not have that. So there are good academic reasons for making this split right now.

Edgar commented about language not in other programs: the ratio language has been in our description for twenty years. In the revised description, invitation by Honors Committee Only suggests vaguely that juniors or transfers can apply.

The motion to amend was defeated. .

Returning to the main motion to approve the description of the Honors Program as originally presented. The motion passed.

Policy Committee Report

E. Wallace moved the following (College Senate Bulletin #8, p. 97):

Business to come before the College Senate from a Standing Committee of the Senate will be published in the College Senate Bulletin at least one week before being brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate. At the discretion of the Senate Chair, lengthy documentation in support of curriculum proposals (both undergraduate and graduate) need only be accessible by an internet address (URL) where the full text of the documentation can be found.

Providing background for the motion, Wallace explained that there has been a longstanding tradition to publish in the Bulletin at least a week in advance any matters from the Standing Committees that go before the Senate. So this practice is now entering Senate guidelines. Showers asked if this statement was to be placed in the Senate By-Laws; Wallace said it was not; this is a policy.

J. Lovett (Biology) had questions about the Internet address. She has been concerned that we seem to have gone from having everything connected to curriculum matters in the Bulletin to having nothing in the Bulletin. The Bulletin provides a lot of course titles and numbers, but not a lot of information. So it would be nice to get a synopsis in Bulletin and the full text at the URL address. Wallace acknowledged that the Committee had discussed this matter.

Showers asked Lovett to clarify if she was for or against the motion. Lovett said she supported it, but maintained that the Senate should have access to information in a timely fashion to be able to vote intelligently. She decided that it was not necessary to amend the motion. Showers suggested Lovett discuss this further with Policy Committee if she would like.

The motion passed unanimously.

Graduate Academic Affairs Report

S. Salmon moved the following on behalf of her Committee:

First Reading – New Courses

CDSC 420

CDSC 581

CDSC 583

The motion passed unanimously.

Revised Program – First Reading

The motion passed unanimously

Masters of Arts in Speech-Language Pathology

The motion passed unanimously.

Student Affairs Committee Report

D. Scott said that her Committee had met on 5 March with representatives from FARI (Fighting Against Racial Injustice). The winter weather made it impossible for Scott and several others to attend the meeting, but C. Matthews (Director, College Union and Activities) was present to run the meeting and gave a brief synopsis to the Senate. Matthews said that FARI discussed issues of diversity on campus and of an inclusive, respectful community. FARI has also been meeting with the Administration, including about a seminar on multiculturalism, expansion of LATS (Livingston Area Transportation Service??), improved reporting of bias-related incidents, and increased recruitment of diverse faculty, staff, and students.

Dahl added some comments to supplement Matthews’ synopsis. senior members of the Administration, including Vice-President for Student and Campus Life R. Bonfiglio, the Provost, C. Gantt (Director of AOP), F. Johnson (Coordinator of Multicultural Programs) , B. Glass and the Co-Chairs of the President’s Commission on Diversity have met 3-4 times with FARI. The College Community needs to take FARI’s concerns seriously; the College Administration and the Diversity Commission take these seriously indeed. In the coming weeks, we will hear about a new procedure for reporting bias-related incidents.

Dahl stressed that it is a great concern for whole college community and for SUNY to recruit and retain higher percentage students of color and to increase faculty and staff of color. He said that the Administration was very pleased to hear concerns from FARI and will meet with them again next week to follow up on a number of suggestions.

As a College, we have been concerned about structural diversity. Representation of people from diverse backgrounds is difficult to achieve; intangibles such as the campus climate may be even more so. We have vestiges of deeply-ingrained racism and attitudes of ignorance that are still hurtful. Rather than consigning these issues to diversity specialists, we need to have a College-wide, ongoing conversation. Dahl said he was particularly discouraging to see that issues we have been working on for years still need addressing. But he is delighted that FARI met with the Student Affairs Committee, and as an Administration we will continue to work on this. We will have another Deliberative Dialogue on issues of community tomorrow in the College Union Ballroom.

Scott concluded that the purpose for inviting FARI was to keep lines of communication open, and Student Affairs will continue to do that.

Faculty Affairs Committee Report

J. Morse said that the Faculty Affairs Committee had met recently. On a meeting day without a quorum on the Thursday before Spring Break, those present discussed the subcommittee work on Faculty service and renewal/continuing appointment/promotion, and also how scholarly activities should be categorized by Departments. We have two good, though not final, reports about this subcommittee work; this might not be completed this year, though we can pass this along to next year’s Committee.

At next meeting—3 April and 10 April at 4PM in South Hall 209, Faculty Affairs will probably keep the service category intact and not fold it into teaching. The Committee is also moving into the direction of recommending that Departments create a set of expectations about types and levels of creative activity expected by Departments. These expectations should not be dictated by the College but formulated on the Department level. The Committee should have solid recommendations for next year on these issues.

Old Business

There was no old business.

New Business

There was no new business.


Chair Showers adjourned the meeting at 5.14PM.

Respectfully submitted

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary

Minutes of the Research Council meeting of March 23th, 2006

Present: Ted Everett, Anne Baldwin, Paul Pacheco, Kazu Yokoyama, Michael Rozalski, Doug Anderson, Denise Scott, Michael Lynch, Jani Lewis

Hurrell/ McNarron Award:

There were two problems with the applications for this award. The outside recommendation letter for Ruben Ornelas was missing in several packets and there was an apparently incomplete application for Jun Okada. After a discussion the recommendation was tabled until the application packets are complete. After everyone gets complete copies the rankings will be collected in an e-mail vote.

Student summer fellowships: For the record Jani Lewis and Michael Rozalski recused themselves from voting and discussion since they had students who had submitted a fellowship.

All Council members, but those who had students in the pool of applicants independently reviewed the applications and placed them in an ordinal ranking, with ties allowed. Based on their Rank Sum scores, the following students were recommended for summer fellowships:

Bobette Buchanan, Jason Miller, Erwin Rusli, and Amanda Wood

The Rhodes Award: The award will be given to Dave Crego, who this year was the only applicant. In the spirit of the award his project is inter-disciplinary.

Updates from Anne Baldwin, Director of Sponsored Research:

Great Day has too many abstracts to make a paper copy as of right now. So abstracts will only be on the web.

Number of posters to be printed is HUGE. Students need to get posters to CIT ASAP.

Levels of support for next year from the Geneseo Foundation:

- Faculty Travel Grants will have $75,000.

- Research Incentive Grants will have $7,000.

- Undergraduate Research and Travel Grants will have $45,000 (half from the SA and half from the Geneseo Foundation)

- A request will be made to SA for an increase in the support for Student Research Grants which will be matched by the Geneseo Foundation.

The question has arisen as to whether we can split the amounts of Faculty Summer fellowships if all applicants from the pool are qualified. After discussion, the consensus of the Research Council is that we should stay the course and award the amount that is published for each of the awards (Presidential Summer Fellowship, Mid-Career and Roemer). Applications for this year’s fellowships were independently reviewed and ranked by all Council members, and based on the combined ranks; those who were recommended were clearly separated by their Rank Sum scores. Since we only have a limited number of these prestigious awards, the competitive nature of them is deemed to be valued.

Travel Grant Policy:

The decision to formalize the Faculty Travel Grant procedures was reopened. Two options were brought before the group based on discussions in earlier meetings. One issue was what to do with the money that becomes available if somebody refuses partial funding. Ultimately, it was decided that such funds should be put back into the travel grant pool for the year, rather than being reapportioned to applicants from that cycle. The suggestion was made to track the requests by department. That level of equity was deemed to be excessive.

Option 1:

If the money is insufficient to cover faculty requests in any given cycle:

Find D, the number of dollars available to distribute.

Find N, the number of applicants who are requesting travel to present a paper, chair a session, make a performance, or some other appropriate activity.

Award to each such applicant $D/N.

Option 2:

Create a check box on the travel grant form which allows a faculty member the right to opt out of the possibility of partial funding. Then, the next time they apply they would rise to top of list and not be subjected to the partial funding procedures as outlined above. While perhaps a good idea in principle, there was a major concern over who would keep track of the records of who had opted out and when. Placing a further burden on Anne Baldwin was thought to be a poor idea.

A unanimous vote was taken to follow Option 1, the $D/N solution and to explain the policy as clearly as possible on the application forms.

Next meeting:

The next and last meeting will occur on study day. Agenda items include discussing replacements to Research Council for members whose appointments have expired.

Respectfully submitted, Jani Lewis (Vice Chair) and Paul Pacheco (Chair)


Executive Committee Meeting Minutes

3 April 2007



Present: K.Conway-Turner, C. Dahl, G. Drake, W. Gohlman, D. Granger, M. Lima, J. Morse, S. Salmon, D. Showers, M. Stolee, E. Wallace


Call to Order


Chair Showers called the Executive Committee to order at 12.50PM.


Adoption of the Agenda


The agenda was approved without corrections or additions.

Approval of the minutes of 20 February 2007 (College Senate Bulletin #9, pp. 111-118)


The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without corrections or additions.



President’s Report


1. Dr. Troy Duster, Professor of Sociology at Berkeley and New York University, will be giving this year¹s Diversity Lecture this afternoon. One of the leading sociologists of our time, Duster also comes from a line of social activists; his grandmother was Ida B. Wells, an early-twentieth-century African American journalist and civil rights activist. Duster studies differential effects of funding and pursuing public health issues (diabetes, alcoholism, violence) in relationship to race.



2. The State Budget was finished this past Sunday‹with a few loose ends. The outcome is close to Dahl¹s prediction at the last College Senate meeting. The major additions are $10 million for a combination of enrollment and full-time faculty and high-needs programs; there are also some other small additions. The total effect of the new Budget on Geneseo will not be clear for a few weeks. Also, the Budget does not include the State Assembly¹s idea of taking $9 million out of the Budget and offsetting this through a subtraction from the Research Budget.


3.. The Search Committee for Vice-President for Advancement has been appointed and will begin its work shortly. The Commitee will be chaired by Vice-President Bonfiglio and include M. Zuckerman (School of Business), W. O¹Donnell (Biology), A. Sheldon (Geology), M. Moore (Athletics), B. Wayland-Smith from the College Council,Vice-Chair of Alumni Association Mark Cronin, and John Linfoot and Kevin Gavagan from the Foundation Board.

Provost’s Report


1. Provost Conway-Turner began her remarks by noting that the College is very busy this month with a number of wonderful speakers. We are looking forward to Great Day on the 17th as well.


2. The Provost will visit Faculty Affairs Committee next week as they have been reviewing the Faculty evaluation form and have been thinking about a College-wide mentoring program for Faculty.


Dahl mentioned an additional point: a pamphlet on reporting bias-related incidents will be coming out, plus a message to College Community from Dahl on the subject. The College Administration has been meeting with multicultural groups and FARI (Fighting Against Racial Injustice). We are very actively trying to change things and respond to undesirable incidents, as in FaceBook. Dahl also thanked the Diversity Commission for its very successful Deliberative Dialogue on the subject of community held recently.


Chair’s Report


1. Showers is still looking at procedures to tidy up. One is the policy on paper-based Senate Bulletins. Some people want to keep these; others think we could do more electronically. Showers will work on this issue as Past Chair next year.


2. Also spilling over into next year is the question about language in the Constitution being consistent with UUP-related and other official documents. We will put together a Committee concerning to address this.


3. University Faculty Senate recently put language into the University Senate Constitution about electronic meetings; at some point next year, we will propose similar language for our Constitution.

Vice-Chair’s Report


1. The Excellence Committee met again recently and has been reviewing a candidate for Distinguished Professor; the Committee has passed this nomination along toc President. A letter of support for the candidate will follow.


2. Anyone interested in continuing as a Committee Chair or would like to be one should send names to Showers.

Past Chair’s Report


No report.


Treasurer’s Report


No report.

University Faculty Senator’s Report

Gohlman reminded the Committee that Brockport would host the University Faculty Senate during the final weekend of the month.

Student Association Vice-President’s Report


No report.

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report


UCC will present last Second Reading. We are getting more proposals to hold on for next year.

Policy Committee Report


No report

Graduate Academic Affairs Committee Report


S. Salmon said that second readings are coming up at Senate.


Wallace asked if the Policy Committee’s proposal about having a week’s notice for curriculum proposals required a second reading. Showers promised to check on this.

Student Affairs Committee Report


No report.

Faculty Affairs Committee Report


Faculty Affairs Committee will meet at 4PM on 10 April in South Hall 209 to discuss two issues from the subcommittees on evaluating 1) service and 2) contributions to the discipline. The Committee has given copies of its preliminary reports to the Provost.


1. The Committee feels that the service category should not be folded into the “per” form. Much of what Faculty do is related to teaching and scholarship; still, Departments should provide guidelines about what falls into particular categories in order to provide consistency for decisions on renewal, promotion, and continuing appointment. These should be available to Faculty Personnel Committee and to candidates. So we recommend that Departments create such a set of guidelines and submit them to the Provost, probably by 8 May.


The Committee discussed the problem with placing service under two categories—i.e, directed studies under teaching, advisement overload under service. The Advisement Task Force may have a specific recommendation. Models of advisement, as well as advisement loads, differ from one Department to another.


2. Expectations for promotion, etc. connected to contributions to the discipline are not clear. The Committee opposed having a specific list of journal articles or a book, etc., but there should be guidelines for candidates to plan their endeavors. So Departments or Schools should delineate guidelines by level—for instance, for first-year contract renewal, for tenure, for promotion, etc. Morse added a personal question herself about whether promotion is tied to tenure or not; she thought that also should be clear to candidates.


The relative significance of various activities within disciplines should be provided to the College Faculty Personnel Committee. Dahl replied that we try to provide this information as a matter of policy. Every untenured Faculty member is told to find acceptance rates and the significance of the journal.


Morse said that the Subcommittees that had studied these two issues were delayed by snow days and low quorums, so this issue will not be ready for first and second readings this year; we will have to bequeath this to next year’s Committee.


Lima noted that service in campus governance has been dismal among Faculty. Is there any way that Faculty Affairs could preserve the service category with some kind of incentive for governance? Showers said that he also wants to discuss how we can more effectively use Senate.


Stolee reminded the Executive Committee that there has to be a service category—the Board of Trustees has mandated it.

Old Business


Showers said that the Senate Chair Committee would probably propose a one- or two-year term, either with or without term limits. A one-year term would mean no progression from Vice-Chair to Chair. Showers added that he was philosophically opposed to term limits; this can often mean that the person best capable for a job is not eligible to do it. Instead of term limits, simply don’t re-elect the person.


Showers said the Committee leans toward the two-year term to give Chairs the time to do the job as well as learn it. But what would the Vice-Chair do then? We do need a Vice-Chair, but we should specify responsibilities, including the Vice Chair’s work with the Excellence and Distinguished Professor awards; this is not in the job description right now. The incentive for Vice-Chair would be quarter-release time in the fall when the Committees are busy.


Showers also pointed out that the Constitution mentions certain Senate officers that may be re-elected; the Senate Secretary, however, is not one of these. We should add language to make this permissible for both Secretary and Treasurer.


Another major matter: there are roles for the Past Chair in Constitution. But if there is no longer a Past Chair, the Committee suggested that the Chair could appoint the role prescribed for the Past Chair with the agreement of the Executive Committee—i.e., for work with the Budget Committee and Strategic Planning Advisory Group.


D. Granger asked: if the Vice Chair will not automatically become Chair, could there be a Chair-Elect to learn the position? Lima asked whether, in that case, the Vice-Chair could run for Chair. For Dahl, the advantage of the succession now is that the Vice-Chair shadows the Chair, and continuity is possible. There is also a basic rolling three-year term for the Strategic Planning and Budget Committees.


Gohlman asked what the attraction of serving for two years would be if we cannot find people to serve one year. If we complicate matters with a Vice-Chair and Chair-Elect, we will have to find even more people to serve. Granger replied that the Committee had discussed giving some of the Chair’s duties to the Vice-Chair and Chair-Elect.


Showers thought it would be suffice for an incoming Chair to have a Past Chair to work with. Also, more important than one or two years is the issue of making it convenient for someone to be re-elected if that person wishes. Some Past Chairs Showers has talked to have said so; but under such a structure, one would not want to be one’s own Vice-Chair and Chair-Elect all at once.


Wallace remembered the benefit to him as a Vice-Chair that came from attending Executive Committee meetings for a year to see how that process works. In response, Showers thought that perhaps, if we have Fall elections for Chair for the following year, someone would become Chair-Elect and have time to attend Executive Committee that year.


Morse offered that, if the Senate Secretary became a corresponding secretary, a clerical staff member could take shorthand notes, and the Secretary could edit these and take care of the Bulletin. Showers said that putting together the Bulletin was not a problem once he had all the pieces together; but he does spend a lot of time with the Senate website.


Granger said there is a general impression that the Vice-Chair does not do a lot of work before becoming Chair, and then does a whole lot. Perhaps we could alter that impression.


Morse reiterated that clerical staff or a really good work-study student could take over the clerical work.


Gohlman recalled that, in “ancient days,” a clerical secretary took notes, and the Secretary edited them. Graham thought this was a possible idea.


We have not been able to find a candidate for Secretary for next year.


Stolee said that we seemed to be talking about the moribund nature of Senate. So if we have a Constitution Committee changing the roles of officers in order to revitalize the Senate, we should look at totally revising the Senate. On the Ad Hoc Constitution Committee last year, we just added a minor change to Senate membership. We had talked about adding professionals more to Senate, but the biggest stumbling block was what they would do. Stolee agreed that it is good to have presentations from the President and Provost, but what else can we do besides presenting information? Why not restructure Committees? make them appointed rather than elected? Or we could add a Parking Committee or a Library Committee, for example.


Showers does want to discuss Committees that exist—and also roles that Senate could take on—with Granger, the President, and the Provost. Lima objected that the Senate should still be a voice of the people, not just an informative body.


Wallace recalled the time when a statement like S. Edgar’s on the Honors Program came out almost every week. There were significant issues with distance learning, the foreign language requirement, the College Calendar, and more.


Showers wonder if the Senate Chair could be an ongoing person as on other Campuses, where the Senate Chair serves 3-4 years (even 12-15 years sometimes, through re-elections). Dahl inquired what the average term was in SUNY. Showers said it was one year or two, depending on whether or not there are term limits. But Showers saw continuity as an advantage—instead of a single term that forces a Chair to accomplish everything in only eight meetings. Morse noted this was true also for Committee Chairs. If the Senate Chair’s term goes to two years, perhaps Committee Chairs could as well. Eight meetings is a tight time-frame. Showers suggested that Committees might have a Chair-Elect for one year who would become Chair the next.


Another idea would be to have the Nominations Committee conduct elections—thus, as a Nominations and Elections Committee—instead of having the Chair conduct elections. Gohlman said this used to be the case. The Senate Chair Committee had thought that it was not a good idea, as a general principle, to have just one person in charge of elections, Showers said.


Showers sent around a draft of the language of proposed Constitutional changes


The Provost and Showers also discussed having the Executive Committee meet at another time besides 12.45 on Tuesdays. Dahl pointed out that the All-College Hour is moving to one day a week, on Wednesdays. The Chairs’ Meeting, the Provost said, will now be at 4PM on Thursdays.

New Business

There was no new business.



Chair Showers adjourned the Executive Committee at 1.47PM.


Respectfully submitted,



Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary



Agenda of the College Senate Meeting

24 April 2007

Call to Order

Adoption of the Agenda (Bulletin #10, pages 147-148)

Adoption of the Minutes of the All-College Meeting 20 March 2007 (Bulletin #10, pages 128-129)

Adoption of the Minutes of the Senate Meeting 20 March 2007 (Bulletin #10, pages 129-140)

Senate Reports

President Christopher Dahl

Provost Kate Conway-Turner

Chair Dennis Showers

Vice Chair David Granger

Past-Chair Maria Lima

Treasurer Kathleen Mapes

University Faculty Senator Bill Gohlman

Vice President, Student Assoc. Jarah Magan

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curricula Meg Stolee

(See agenda items listed separately below)

Undergraduate Policies Ed Wallace

Second Reading: Policy on Publishing Standing Committee Business prior to Senate Meetings (College Senate Bulletin #8, p. 97)

Graduate Academic Affairs Susan Salmon

(See agenda items listed separately below)

Student Affairs Denise Scott

Faculty Affairs Jane Morse

Old Business

New Business


Undergraduate Curricula Agenda Items

Revised Courses: Second Reading

COMN 102: Principles of Communication

Math 262: Applied Statistics

Deleted Courses: Second Reading

ENGL 100: College Writing I

Revised Programs: Second Reading

Honors Program

Graduate Curricula Agenda Items

New Courses: Second Reading

CDSC 420

CDSC 581

CDSC 583

Revised Program: Second Reading

Masters of Arts in Speech-Language Pathology

Agenda of the 2007-2008 College Senate Meeting

24 April 2007

Call to Order

Adoption of the Agenda (CSB #10, p. 148)

Senate Reports

Chair Dennis Showers

New Business

Old Business