14 Dec. 2001
162 Spring 2002 College Senate and Senate Committee MeetingSchedule
162 Senate Bulletin Mailing List
162 Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting, Nov. 27, 2001
163 College Senate Meeting, Dec. 4, 2001
Correspondence: Janice A. Lovett, Departmentof Biology,
Bailey 210; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; phone: 245-5413
Spring 2002 CollegeSenate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule
February 5 Executive Committee Meeting
Faculty Affairs Committee, Welles 111, 4 p.m.
February 12 College Senate Meeting
February 26 Executive Committee Meeting
March 5 College Senate Meeting and All-College Meeting
April 2 Executive Committee Meeting
April 9 College Senate Meeting
April 23 Executive Committee Meeting
April 30 College Senate Meeting
Senate Bulletin Mailing List
Any member of the College Community may receive an individual copy of the College Senate Bulletin. If you would like to receivea copy please send your name as you would like it to appear onthe mailing label and your campus address to the Senate Chair,Janice Lovett, email@example.com or 210 Bailey.
Faculty Affairs Committee Minutes
Present: J. Mclean, S. McKenna, R. Hartman, J. Putorti,N. Paternostro, M. Putman
The meeting was called to order at 4:08 pm.
The minutes of the meeting of 10/23/01 were approved.
1) The Professional Leave Review Committee was discussed asthe issue of term length and re-election is being considered atthe request of some of the current members of that committee. The current status for the committee is that there are 3 peopleelected each year for 2-year terms. The suggested change is extendingthe period of service for all members from 2-year terms to 3-yrterms. This would change the rotation so that two members wouldrotate off when two new members begin to serve their terms. Oneof the problems we discussed surrounding that is that people maybe less inclined to join the committee with a longer term butthat was also seen as positive because a member would have moretime to adjust to the committee and provide more continuity.Another issue we talked about was whether a member of this committeewould have to have gone on sabbatical or have tenure. There mightbe a problem if this requirement significantly decreases the poolof eligible candidates. We concluded that we need to find outmore information about this committee and its structure beforemaking any conclusions. We are going to invite a member of theProfessional Leave Review Committee to come to an FAC meeting.
2) J. McLean said that the Executive Committee had not yetgiven the FAC the promised task(s) based on the AAC&U conference.
3) We then discussed the format of Senate elections. Theideas of providing more information about the candidates suchas biography or purpose for joining Senate were suggested. Thiswould give people voting more information to base their vote on,which would especially help out new Geneseo faculty. This wouldbe in reference to those running for at-large members or higherpositions such as chair or vice-chair. Members seemed to thinkthat this was a good idea and that information should be providedvoluntarily by candidates. However, it was unclear what the bestroute for implementation was. Chair McLean will ask members ofthe Nominations committee for advice.
4) The issue of faculty consultation in filling the positionof Dean of the College was raised, spurred by the imminent retirementof Tom Greenfield from the position. Within the Constitutionthere is some confusion on who must be consulted, possibly dueto the College administrative structure having changed since thatsection of the Constitution was written. Constitution ArticleVIII mentions the level of Assistant Dean, but FAC members werenot familiar enough with the administrative structure to knowwhether or not we had Assistant Deans here at Geneseo. ArticleV of the By-Laws says that the President shall consult the FacultyCommittee on Administrative Appointments (FCAA) before selectingspecific high-ranking positions, but does not include Dean ofthe College. We were concerned about the clarification of thesetwo sections. We were also unclear about the hierarchy of positionson campus. We need to find out more information about that systembefore being able to make any changes clarifying the Constitution. We also need to find out how the FCAA is formed.
5) S. McKenna asked about the progress of forming the TaskForce and J. McLean reported that it was still moving along.
6) S. McKenna also asked about the issue of paper syllabibeing required to hand out to students. After some discussion,it was noted that we think the issue went to the UndergraduatePolicy Committee.
7) The next FAC meeting will be next semester February 5,2002 in Welles 111 at 4:00 pm.
8) The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 pm.
Minutes of the College Senate Meeting
6 December 2001
Present: D. Anderson; J. Ballard; T. Book; S. Brainard;M. Brummell; J. Bushnell; M. Chang; W. Cook; F.K. Cylke; C. Dahl;J. DeCeu; G. Dingeldein; G. Drake; M. Dunn; K. Farrell; C. Faulkner;B. Fearn; C. Filice; S. Flynn; C. Freeman; J. Gill; W. Gohlman;D. Granger; T. Greenfield; A. Gu; E. Hall: K. Hannam; A. Happ;R. Hartman; A. Hatton; D. Hill; T. Hon; H. Hoops; D. Johnson;J. Jungbluth; J. Kirkwood; A. Kline; C. Leary; K. Levison; J.Lieberman; M. Lima; J. Lovett; T. Macula; K. Mapes; P. McCarthy;R. McEwen; S. McKenna; J. McLean; D. McPherson; D. Metz; J. F.Morse; J. Mounts; M. Oberg; K. O’Gara; P. Pacheco; N. Paternostro;M. Putman; J. Putorti; K. Rank; J. Remy; P. Schacht; A. Sheldon;A. Stanley, L. Steet; M. Stolee; D. Sullivan; L. Taczak; C. Tang;G. Towsley; R. Vasiliev; C. Whalen; C. Wixson; T. Zollo; J.Zook
Guests: S. Babler; S. Bailey; P. Binh; E. Blask; R. Blomquist;M. Chin; M. Colgan; D. Eustance; M. Gillani; J. Harasta; G. Hartvigsen;K. Heassler; E. Kallin; M. Lupia; J. Over; R. Pretzer; E. Rathfellder; E. Rivenburgh; C. Romanick; D. Schultz; S. Storie; C. Swain; D. Weatherbee
Call to Order
College Senate Chair Lovett called the meeting to order at 4.05PM.
Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was adopted unanimously.
Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The minutes of the meeting of6 November 2001 (Bulletin 7, pp. 119-30) with the following correction:
J. Bushnell noted that in theminutes of the last Senate meeting on p. 123 of the Bulletin,the next to last sentence in the last full paragraph should readas follows:
Bushnell explained that UCC did not discussthis; the proposal came from the INTD meeting already reading“Library Faculty.”
The agenda was adopted unanimously with this correction.
Deferred till later in the meeting (see below).
Chair Lovett distributed a handouton Robert’s Rules of Order from the website of the PhilomatheanSociety at the University of Pennsylvania.
Lovett pointed out that the Senate Constitution requires thatthe Senate’s Parliamentarian come from its own ranks. TheParliamentarian, however, cannot normally participate in debatesor Senate action. For the time being, Student Senator J. Remyhad agreed to continue as Parliamentarian; anyone who would liketo take his place so that he could engage in standard Senate involvementsshould contact Lovett.
The Spring Schedule has been posted in the Bulletin, so Senatorsshould mark their calendars.
University Senator’s Report
Central Council Report
J. Lieberman reported on twomotions that Central Council passed at their last meeting on 28November.
1. ADA (Americans with Disability Act) resolution:
Whereas SUNY Geneseo isa state institution and as such should be leading the way formeeting requirements and expectations set forth in the Americanswith Disabilities Act;
And whereas SUNY Geneseo is an inclusive campus that doesnot discriminate against any student for any reason and statesin the College Mission Statement "The entire College communityworks together to develop socially responsible citizens with skillsand values important to the pursuit of an enriched life and successin the world;"
BE IT RESOLVED that Central Council, on behalf of the StudentAssociation of SUNY Geneseo, deplores the fact that the collegeadministration refuses to provide a student with a physical handicapthe full educational experience through co-curricular activitiesby not funding a wheelchair lift for an event in the College UnionBallroom.
2. Resolution regarding statements on Afghanistan:
Whereas the SUNY Geneseo Student Association consists ofover 5,000 students with many differing opinions on the war inAfghanistan;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Council, on behalf of theStudent Association, does not support any resolution in the CollegeSenate that either supports or denounces the war in Afghanistan;
And be it further resolved that Central Council supportsthe discussion of such an important and historic topic and urgesthe College to open discussion in the classroom and other forums.
Similar resolutions were alsopassed recently by the Academic Affairs Committee and by the Inter-ResidenceCouncil.
Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
J. Bushnell presented the latest motions from her Committee:
Program Revisions (each moved separately):
B.S. in Accounting, B.S. in Business Administration,B.A. in Economics (Bulletin, p. 86)
B.A. in Art Studio (Bulletin, p. 68)
B.A. in Mathematics (Bulletin, p. 70)
Minor in Asian Studies (Bulletin, p. 78)
Minor in Dance (Bulletin, p. 86)
Each of these second readings passed unanimously
Course Deletions (moved as a package):
DANC 304—Cultural Dance III (Bulletin, p. 95)
MUSC 316—Form and Analysis (Bulletin, p. 97)
The course deletions were passed unanimously.
New Courses (moved as a package):
ANTH 323—Primate Behavior Field Methods (Bulletin,p. 88)
ANTH 324—Primate Behavior Lab Methods (Bulletin,p. 89)
DANC 105—Methods in Body Conditioning: (subtitle)(Bulletin, p. 90)
DANC 340—Studies in Dance: (subtitle) (Bulletin,p. 91)
GSCI 348—Practical Hydrogeology (Bulletin, p.92)
HIST 337—The Brit Isles, 1485-1714 (Bulletin,p. 75)
The new courses were passed unanimously.
Course Revisions (moved as package):
ARTS 365—Junior Portfolio Review (Bulletin, p.78)
BIOL 342—Parasitology (Bulletin, p. 79)
CHEM 320—Physical Chemistry I (Bulletin, p. 79)
CHEM 334—Bioinorganic Chemistry (Bulletin, p.79)
DANC 101—Ballet I (Bulletin, p. 94)
DANC 102—Modern I (Bulletin, p. 94)
DANC 103—Jazz I (Bulletin, p. 94)
DANC 104—Cultural Dance I: (subtitle) (Bulletin,p. 94)
DANC 201—Ballet II (Bulletin, p. 94)
DANC 202—Modern II (Bulletin, p. 94)
DANC 203—Jazz II (Bulletin, p. 95)
DANC 204—Cultural Dance II: (subtitle) (Bulletin,p. 95)
DANC 250—Classical Ballet (Bulletin, p. 95)
DANC 301—Ballet III (Bulletin, p. 95)
DANC 302—Modern III (Bulletin, p. 95)
DANC 303—Jazz III (Bulletin, p. 95)
DANC 331—Dance Composition I (Bulletin, p. 95)
DANC 332—Dance Composition II (Bulletin, p. 96)
ECON 301—Econometrics (Bulletin, p. 96)
ECON 330—Government Finance (Bulletin, p. 96)
INTD 105—Writing Seminar: (subtitle) (Bulletin,p. 96)
MATH 140—Math Concepts for El. Ed. I (Bulletin,p. 79)
MATH 237—Introduction to Discrete Mathematics(Bulletin, p. 79)
MATH 366—Foundations of Actuarial Science (Bulletin,p. 79)
MUSC 100—Understanding Music: (subtitle) (Bulletin,p. 96)
MUSC 315—Studies in Music Technique: (subtitle)(Bulletin, p. 97)
PHIL/EDUC 305—Philosophy of Education (Bulletin,p. 97)
PHIL 393—Honors Thesis (Bulletin, p. 80)
SOCL 211—Statistics for Social Research (Bulletin,p. 97)
SOCL 213—Sociology of Medicine (Bulletin, p.80)
SOCL 215—Women and Law (Bulletin, p. 80)
SOCL 220—Inequality, Class, and Poverty (Bulletin,p. 80)
SOCL 230—Race and Ethnicity (Bulletin, p. 80)
SOCL 325—Global Social Change (Bulletin, p. 80)
SOCL 347—Criminology (Bulletin, p. 81)
The course revisions passed unanimously.
Course Deletions: (moved as a package)
ANTH 225—Ethno-nonverbal Communication (Bulletin8, p. 145)
ANTH 308—Field Methods in Paleoanthropology (Bulletin8, p. 146)
ANTH 315—Iroquois Field School (Bulletin 8, p.146)
BIOL 313—Horticultural Science (Bulletin 8, p.146)
ECON/MGMT 322—Managerial Economics (Bulletin8, p. 146)
ENGL 334—American Literature of the DepressionEra (Bulletin 8, p. 146)
GEOG 360—M/Asian Field Course: (subtitle) (Bulletin8, p. 146)
GEOG 372—Physical Environmental Hazards (Bulletin8, p. 146)
HIST 327—Transforming Russia & China (Bulletin8, p. 146)
INTD 260—Heritage of Jewish Civilization (Bulletin8, p. 146)
INTD 270—Topics in History of Science I (Bulletin8, p. 146)
INTD 271—Topics in History of Science II (Bulletin8, p. 146)
INTD 292—Race in the Americas (Bulletin 8, p.146)
MGMT 322—Managerial Economics (Bulletin 8, p.146)
MGMT 353—Intermediate Statistics (Bulletin 8,p. 146)
MGMT 381—Independent Research in Management I(Bulletin 8, p. 146)
PHIL 333—Artificial Intelligence Problem (Bulletin8, p. 146)
PLSC 312—Government & Budgetary Priorities (Bulletin8, p. 146)
PLSC 323—Politics of Revolution (Bulletin 8,p. 146)
PSYC 379—Human Factors & Ergonomics (Bulletin8, p. 146)
The course deletions passed unanimously.
New Course and new Natural Science Core Course:
GSCI 105—N/Environmental Science (Bulletin 8,p. 146)
Bushnell moved for a waiver ofthe first reading. Greenfield said he is usually inalterably opposedto waiving of first readings, but a large amount of preparatorywork and delay from his office convinced him to support this motion.
This motion passed unanimously.
Bushnell then moved for second reading; this motion passedunanimously
INTD 250—Study Abroad: (subtitle) (Bulletin 8,p. 151)
Bushnell moved for a waiver ofthe first reading. This time, Greenfield announced his opposition.He explained that this course is a proposal from his office, andhe believed his office should be held to the same standards asother proposals. He also explained in response to an inquiry thatthe course can be offered in the spring under experimental rubric;no student will be denied opportunity to take this course.
The Chair asked for a vote on the motion but found it necessaryto perform a hand count. The motion to waive the first readingpassed.
UCC then moved the second reading of the motion; this passedunanimously.
Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review
C. Filice moved the Second Readingof the School of Performing Arts Policy on Auditions (Bulletin,p. 81). There was no discussion, and the motion passed unanimously.
Graduate Academic Affairs Committee
D. Metz moved the second readings of the following courses individually:
New Course CDSc 465—Hearing Problems (Bulletin,p. 98)
Revised Course CDSc 443—Linguistic PhonologicalDisorders (Bulletin, p. 100)
Revised Course CDSc 445—Language Interventionwith Persons with Severe Impairment (Bulletin, p. 104)
Revised Program Proposal M.A. in Speech Pathology(Bulletin, p. 108)
Each of these motions passed unanimously.
Student Affairs Committee
D. McPherson reported that theCommittee had met last week. Student Affairs is still discussingimprovement of the S.A.F.E. transportation system. No specificproposals or motions have appeared yet.
Faculty Affairs Committee
J. McLean reported that the brownbag lunch with ESL professor Irene Belyakov went well last week.Tabitha Buggie-Hunt, Director of Disability Services, would offera similar lunchtime presentation next semester.
The Professional Leave and Review Committee might be changingits term length and member eligibility.
Resolution on Afghanistan
T. Macula (Mathematics) saidhe would like to substitute the following for the motion that had appeared previously in the Minutes:
Whereas, the people of the United States have experienced the horror of the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians onSeptember 11, 2001;
Whereas, hundreds of innocent civilians are being killedor injured in Afghanistan; and
Whereas the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians isan undesirable outcome of the United States’ response tothe tragic events of September 11, 2001;
BE IT RESOLVED:
The Senate of SUNY Geneseo deplores the tragic events of September11, 2001 and supports measured responses to this crime against humanity.
2. The Senate of the SUNY Geneseo calls upon President Bushand his administration to refrain from bombing cities, villages,and areas with substantial civilian populations in the pursuitof terrorists.
3. The Senate calls upon President Bush and his administrationto work through the United Nations and to seek its advice andconsent before conducting any military action against terroristson foreign soil.
The motion was seconded. Discussion followed.
Macula said that the modifiedmotion is based on comments people sent to him while preservingthe main thrust of the original motion. He presented the followingspeech in favor of the motion:
I am in favor of the substitute motion; here’s why:
In response to the terrorist acts, the role of our armed forcesshould be one of law enforcement. As a cooperating member of theinternational community, the United States should actively seekthe advice and recommendations of the United Nations before ourmilitary assumes a law enforcement position. Acting outside ofany parameters or international legal structure, our operationstake on aspects of vigilantism. The horrible terrorist attackson our country were a “crime against humanity” and the resolution condemns those responsible, supports bringingthem to justice, and supports active, even lethal, measures tocombat terrorism. However, Congress has not declared war and militaryshould not be in its standard “war fighting” mode. Thus the use of massive air strikes is questionable. Whathas been the outcome?
Even with many US press agencies operating under the rule, “Do not use wire stories which lead with civilian casualtiesÉ”, we can still read from respected news agencies (somein the US) with journalists in Afghanistan that hundreds if notthousands of civilians have been killed. From Newsday we read:
U.N. ordnance specialists in Kabul say they “find evidenceof a broad pattern of erroneous bombing. The Pentagon likes toshow the impressive videos, but we are finding more misses thanhits.”
From the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan(RAWA):
Despite the claims that only military and terrorist bases of theTaliban and Al Qaeda will be struck, what we have witnessed leavesno doubt that this invasion will shed the blood of numerous women,men, children, young and old of our country.”
Thus lawful forces on the ground should not be replied by airstrikes that indiscriminately kill civilians and terrorist alike.The killing of hundreds of innocent civilians by US bombs is anundesirable and non-proportional outcome of our nation’s response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
In closing, to those who say that the resolution is a politicsstatement, I say that the resolution is an appeal for self-control,empathy and the rule of law, and it is no more politics than isthe Golden Rule. And to those who say the resolution is unpatrioticor un-American, I say that adherence to the mantra “USA! USA! USA! Whatever we do to get these terrorists is OK,” is as great a threat to our security and freedom as is terrorismitself. Instead, I think the resolution is about as patrioticas the poem “America, the Beautiful”, forthe latter part of the second stanza reads:
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
C. Leary (Mathematics) called for a point of information. Shouldn'tthe Senate be discussing the issue of substitution? Lovett agreedthat the Senate should be focusing on the substitution.
H. Howe (School of Business) was impressed by the artfulness ofthe language in the motion; it could mean different things todifferent constituencies.
C. Leary called for a point of order: Shouldn't the Senate befocusing on the motion?
H. Howe clarified that his point was that the resolution couldbe taken to support exactly what the United States was doing:taking measured action and avoiding bombing in areas with substantialcivilian populations; but clearly the resolution could be takenas something very different. We should not substitute a new resolution.
J. Gill (Student Senator) argued that changing the resolutionnow did not make much sense because we polled our constituentsbased on the old motion.
J. Morse (School of Education) responded that Senators had beendiscussing the motion with their constituents, and this resolutionrepresented the product of those discussions.
Macula said he had distributed copies of the new resolutions andhad been trying to make the resolution represent what the studentbody thinks.
D. Schultz (Guest) felt that the Senate should move on and adoptthe substitute.
H. Howe said there was a reason not to substitute this motion.The previous motion was clearer about not supporting war-makingpolicies; the present one was more ambiguous.
M. Crane (Guest) pointed out that the resolution called for thesense of the Senate, not the College.
T. Greenfield said he would vote against the substitution becausethe rationale was unclear. The revised motion mentioned the UnitedNations and was definitely a political motion.
P. Pacheco (Anthropology) called for a point of information aboutthe resolution from Central Council—what kind of resolutiondid Central Council oppose? J. Lieberman explained that it wouldbe any motion.
K. Cylke (Sociology) found the resolution eloquent and focusedcompared to the original. This could build consensus in this community.
J. Youngblood (Student Senator) commended Macula for attemptingto craft a resolution to represent majority opinion. Yet he didnot think any resolution could speak for the majority of Geneseostudents.
M. Brummell (Student Senator) supported the substitution. Themain problem the Senate had last time was the wording of the resolutionitself. She moved to call the question. The motion was secondedand passed. A vote followed on substituting this for the originalmotion. A hand count was taken. The Senate voted to defeat thesubstituted motion. 32-29.
The Senate then took up the original motion (Bulletin, 125).
Discussion followed. Macula moved to withdraw the motion fromconsideration. This was seconded. The Parliamentarian advisedthat this motion was not debatable.
J. McLean called for a point of information: the parliamentaryprocedure handout said this motion should be approved by unanimousconsent. (The Parliamentarian later determined that the handoutwas wrong; according to Robert’s Rules, it takes a majorityvote and not unanimous consent to withdraw a motion.)
Macula moved to table the motion. This motion was not debatable.Seconded. A majority was necessary for passing this motion. Themajority tabled the motion.
C. Dahl gave his report (deferred from the beginning of the agendabecause of a conference call).
1. The SEFA Campaign, which supports many local, national,and international charities, started with the goal of raising$29,000 and ended up raising $39,575.25 from 278 contributors.This number represents 32% of our employees. This participationbespeaks a concern for social service agencies at a point whenNew York State is clearly suffering; the State may only be providing$100 million for social services as opposed to $500 million. Herecognized and thanked Debra Hill for chairing the Campaign.
2. Dahl announced that the search for a new CAS (Campus AuxiliaryServices) Director had been completed. Former CAS Director T.Bell had resigned in April, and at that point it seemed to Dahlthat the CAS Board and the College had the opportunity to lookmore carefully into the operations of CAS in reference to nationalstandards. J. Boiani, chair of the CAS Board and Dahl broughtin some people from the California State University system tolend insight into what was working well and not working well aswell as advice about looking for a new Director. Boiani and Dahlboth believed that a College Search at roughly the Vice-Presidentiallevel was needed, and so Dahl and Boiani jointly appointed a searchcommittee of eight persons— students, faculty, staff, andthe local business community—chaired by B. Glass (Sociology);other members included P. Markulis from the School of Business;J. Boiani (Chemistry); student Emily Spilman (Student) and Vice-PresidentR. Bonfiglio from the CAS Board; and three appointees from theCollege community as a whole: J. Lieberman from Central Council(who also serves as its Business Affairs Officer); Brenda Copeland,President of the Bank of Castile; and Bill Coangelo, Chief BudgetOfficer at the College. Following Geneseo’s open practices,there were two-day visits from candidates who talked to CAS staff,Department Chairs, and any faculty, students, and student groups or others who wished to speak.
The unanimous choice of the Search Committee and of the CASBoard (which legally makes the appointment) was Edward Abbott.He had been chair of Campus Support Services at Brigham Youngfor 10 years—food services, but also renovation of theStudent Union, the campus convenience store—experiencerelevant to the way CAS had been doing things. Abbott was theCommittee’s unanimous choice. Abbott was also a food serviceadministrator at a major hospital in Salem, Massachusetts beforegoing to Brigham Young. He had accepted the position at Geneseoto begin on 7 January 2002. Dahl said that it was sometimes valuableto have change even if it might be disquieting He did feel thathe spoke for the CAS Board and the Search Committee by sayingthat the College had opened up processes and was looking forwardfor a very businesslike way to run CAS. Dahl also looked forwardto Abbott’s coming and thanked CAS for working during aseventh-month period of great flux.
3. Dahl introduced two motions related to the Budget situation.
He explained that the State Budget Call Letter asks the universityto subsist on the same number of dollars as last year. This amounted,in effect, to a $1.1 million cut to the campus Budget. New YorkState, meanwhile, was facing an extraordinarily difficult budgetyear because it did not have budget figures for the third quarterof year, and this hoped because the State Department of Taxationhad a major office in the World Trade Center.
Dahl certainly did not feel he was in a position to giveup on advocacy; yet the College must be very careful about whatit does and what it spends going into next year.
Vice-President for Administration K. Levison said he hadsent a memo to all Department Chairs, Deans and Directors , andhe would put this on President’s Office website in thesection on the Budget situation.
1. Hiring freeze. Searches would only continue with Presidentialor Vice-Presidential approval. All classified vacancies wouldbe funded at the hiring rate of that position; we would try toretrieve savings from the seniority of prior positions. Facultyvacancies would be filled at the assistant professor level; wewould attempt to fund all professional and management-confidentialpositions at the lower level if senior people are departing. Anysavings generated from these measures will go to the College asa whole rather than to individual departments or divisions toprepare for any worst-case scenario budget situations.
2. Leave. Prior approval would be required for overtimeand holiday staff-- only necessary travel; all travel would requireprior approval by Vice-Presidents or the Provost. The sabbaticalswould continue to be will awarded, but would pay for themselves.Large investments in new equipment, such as the administrativemainframe, would l be deferred for a year to allow for short-termcash flow.
3. Utility conservation. Electric costs in October were $30,000higher than a year ago. This could be costed out to an extra $200,000,and air conditioning in July could be reduced.
None of these measures meant we should relent in seekingto fund SUNY at an appropriate level. Even in the good years,we were not getting additional money. In one year during the “seven years of feast,” the Legislature did not giveus enough money to cover already-negotiated salary increases.
On first resolution, Dahl reminded the Senate that we werein the Budget Season, facing a difficult budgetary situation.We would probably need to establish a partnership in which theState provided funding for salaries while we tightened belts oncampus and asked parents and students to endure a modest tuitionincrease.
As for the second resolution, most other states at a recenthigher education conference Dahl attended saw higher educationas a priority for economic recovery, though this did not seemto be happening in New York State. It was the College Senate atFredonia (among the first of several SUNY schools) that firstpassed a similar resolution for a rational tuition policy. Weusually knew that we will get tuition increases; but we wouldhave a rise of $1000 one year and then nothing for a number years,then another $1000 increase. An incremental increase would befairer to all families in the State who send their children toSUNY.
C. Leary asked whether Associate Professors from the Departmentof Mathematics or other retrenchment was in store. No, Dahl assuredhim. The Call Letter also has asked for zero lay-offs; after all,Dahl noted, this was an election year. Moreover, we had been defendingfaculty, courses, and the availability of courses for studentsto finish their degrees. Geneseo has never retrenched faculty.Leary followed up and asked whether Dahl extended that feelingto staff? Yes, Dahl answered, though our core is faculty.
K. Levison (Vice-President for Administration) said thatthe Governor wants to cut 5,000 employees from the State workforcewithout layoffs or retrenchment.
M. Brummell asked whether students should be expecting arise in tuition. Dahl said that this was a good question, yethe also felt there was no way to answer it because the Collegedid not set tuition, but the legislature did. Unlike fees, tuitionwas completely eligible for TAP aid. Dahl expressed concern foraccess to high-quality education for students from families oflimited means; for them, he believed, a modest tuition increaseper semester would be better than a sudden increase. But the politicsof tuition increases made it impossible to know what to expect.
Dahl believed we found ourselves in an unprecedented NewYork State Budget year, yet the calmness of how Albany was reactingstruck him as eerie, considering that the revenue picture waslooking bad. The World Trade Center was a human tragedy with theside effect of eliminating office space where 15% of the totalsalary income that generated State income tax revenue used tocome from. If corporate offices moved to New Jersey, for example,the State would lose that revenue.
D. McPherson supported the resolution because, even thoughit was not ideal, it was asking the College community to widenits participation in the real world. He thought it would generatefurther and fruitful discussion on both sides of the issue.
An unidentified guest asked whether lobbying efforts hadbeen focusing on reduced funding for incarceration, and also whetheranyone had considered reducing administrative salaries in theSUNY Budget. Dahl replied that past lobbying had compared increasedincarceration costs with the cost of education, yet Dahl was willingto argue that $35,000 to fund a prisoner compared unfavorablywith the $7,000 a year needed to fund each SUNY student.
As for administrative salaries, Dahl spoke to Geneseo’s situation. Salaries for the 21 people classified as management-confidential have historically tracked or lagged behind those of faculty,clerical, and ground staff. There had been no discussion of administratorsoffering up a portion of their salary, nor did he wish to speakfor anyone else.
M. Lima (English) recounted that AOP cuts had led one Englishmajor to be concerned about graduating. Dahl assured the Senatethat the College was not making any AOP cuts. The increases tothe State’s EOP program rather than the local AOP program(which is an umbrella of EOP and includes what used to be calledTOP). The problem is that the additional money appropriated byone house of the Legislature never made it into the budget forAOP.
An unidentified guest asked Dahl why SUNY was seeking savingsthrough higher tuition rather than (for example ) reducing spendingon dormitory renovation? Dahl explained that dormitory renovationsare not part of our capital budget, so this gap cannot be filledby that budget. As the presentation in terms of the Senate inOctober showed, the College actually has four separate budgets.Dahl did note that the College was committed to reducing capitalexpenditures in the capital budget.
Two resolutions were presentedin response to the current SUNY Budget situation. The first ofthese read as follows:
The costs of delivering a qualitycollege education to the students of New York State have risenat a rate at least equivalent to that of the rate of inflation;and
The State of New York has a fiduciary and constitutional responsibilityto support publish higher education for the benefit of its taxpayers,both present and future, and
The Governor’s Office of Employee Relations negotiatescollective bargaining contracts that require campuses to pay increasesfor 2002-2003;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the College Senate of SUNY Geneseo endorses the adoptionof a 2002-2003 funding proposal that provides for a partnershipbetween the State, the students, and SUNY;
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the College Senate of SUNY Geneseo calls on the Chancellorand Board of Trustees to support a budget request that both asksthe State for collective bargaining increases and provides fora modest tuition increase for the 2002-2003 academic year.
Lovett noted that this resolution responds to a situation in whichthe rate of inflation has been nearly 20% since the last tuitionincrease. She moved the resolution, and it was seconded.
T. Macula said that, though the resolution contained good things,there were some things he disagreed with. He did not want to voteon this today and saw no urgency for the resolution, given theusual delays that the Legislature.
M. Stolee (History) reminded the Senate that State Law requiredthe Governor to present his Budget by 15 January 2002.
K. Hannam (Biology) thought students would oppose this resolution,but paying a modest tuition increase in the face of 20% inflationwas not too much to ask.
L. Taczak (Student Senator) said that she did not come to Geneseothinking she would pay the same price all four years.
T. Macula objected to using the word “taxpayer here,” adding that we should suggest that the Governor forego tax cutsplanned for the next few years. Then there would be no problem.
R. Vasiliev said that becausethe same resolution had been passed by other state schools, sendingthis resolution would mean speaking in one voice and showing aunified resolve.
M. Gallani (Guest) noted that, while the tuition increase coveredinflation, she and her parents did not see adjustments for inflationin their earnings.
S. Babler (Guest) favored the resolution. While we might not knowstudent input, we could see the rightness of it.
P. Pacheco favored the motion with the caveat that we think rationallyabout how parents’ money was spent. Perhaps this shouldapply even to the way people pay for their meal budgets. PresidentDahl said that the Faculty and Students elect the CAS Board, hewas pleased with it; he believed it would attempt to be rational.
H. Howe favored the motion, especially the second paragraph.
T. Macula moved to change “taxpayer” to “citizens.” The motion was seconded. R. Vasiliev asked“Why?” Macula replied that his children amongothers do not pay taxes. There are things we do for the benefitof the common welfare. D. McPherson wondered whether there wasany way not to pay taxes in some way.
W. Cook (History) said that, in common parlance, “taxpayers” meant “income tax payers.” To avoid leavinganyone out, he preferred “citizens.” Dahlagreed with Macula and Cook.
R. Vasiliev called the question. The motion to substitute “citizen” for “taxpayer” passed.
The Senate returned to debate the resolution with the revisedwording.
M. Brummell asked whether we were experiencing the Budget cutsbecause of what we experienced on 11 September. Lovett repliedthat the stock market was down, and this was anticipated; theattack on the World Trade Center/ both removed part of Wall Street’s operations and its tax revenue to New York State.
K. Levison said that the State was predicting a $9 billion revenueshortfall, including a dramatic increase in entitlement programs,both because of what had already been happening in the economyand from what happened on 11 Sept. The tax reductions were back-endloaded several years ago, and so were anticipated.
P. Binh saw this resolution pitting students against professors.He complained that President Bush gave plenty of money to airportsecurity without a dime for SUNY Geneseo. How much, Binh wantedto know, did George Pataki make a year, and did anyone want tofind out?
J. Putorti (Student Senator) thought it was fairer “for each of us to do our part.” If there has been 20%inflation, a modest increase is acceptable.
J. McLean noted that this resolution was not based on the currentBudget situation; instead, the resolution points to a historyof not funding state education, and this should not be the case.
M. Brummell argued that education should be providing for students.Her parents were paying taxes, so she should not be paying forgoing to school. Why, she asked, were we putting a greater burdenon students? In New York City alone, little money was being putinto schools.
R. Vasiliev moved to call thequestion. This motion passed. Next, the Senate voted on the amendedresolution; the motion passed.
The second resolution was presented:
Resolution Regarding Rational Tuition Policy
Access to higher education has long been a foundation of a democraticsociety; and
The State of New York has a fiduciary and constitutional responsibilityto support public higher education; and
In the current economic climate citizens need to have the abilityto plan long-term for the costs of higher education; and
The costs of delivering higher education programs increase dueto the impact of inflation on fixed costs and due to new programcreation
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the College Senate of SUNY Geneseo endorses the establishmentof a rational tuition plan (such as one calling for regular tuitionincreases corresponding to inflation increases but without accompanyingdecreases in State funds for higher education) for the State Universityof New York.
Lovett clarified that the resolution asked for tuition increaseson a predictable basis.
Macula moved to amend the resolution. He thought that a likelyoutcome would be tuition increases without an increase in theBudget. So he called for amending the resolution as follows
Be it resolved that SUNY Budget endorses an increase in budgetat least at the level of inflation.
Lovett said there was a parenthetical addition in the Bulletincalling for tuition increases that correspond to increases inthe rate of inflation without accompanying decreases in Statefunding.
Bushnell proposed an amendment, changing the words “without accompany decreases” to “with correspondingincreases.” The motion was seconded.
In the brief ensuing discussion, H. Howe approved of the amendment’s “much cleaner language.”
A vote on the amendment passed unanimously.
Discussion continued on the resolution as a whole.
Another Student Senator asked whether this meant tuition wouldincrease every year. She did not see the sense of this in theresolution, but R. Vasiliev pointed to the answer in the third“whereas” clause, on the costs of deliveringhigher education.
President Dahl reminded the Senate that this resolution beganon another campus. The intent was not that for a yearly increasebut to recognize that there increases would occur. Did we wantan increase similar to the last one—a 27% increase—limping along followed by a perverse catch-up game— ordid we make the tuition increase flexible and related to needsof students and to maintaining high-quality programs?
J. Morse pointed out that “rational” did notnecessarily equal to “small,” and “regular” was undefined and rather vague.
G. Hartvigsen (Guest) noted that increases were likely. The questionwas whether this would happen in an abrupt, painful jump thatwould affect later students, including younger siblings of currentstudents. Should they alone bear the burden? Or should the increasebe more gradual?
K. Levison spoke for the resolution. The resolution for a rationaltuition plan was calling for a rational way to determine futurefunding. This would take tuition, our main source of revenue,out of the political theater in which it new exists and tie itin some meaningful way to the program.
Kathleen Nugent (Guest) thought a rational tuition plan couldmean a big increase; this could affect people on a four-year scale.She urged student senators to get more input from students andfind out more about their backgrounds.
M. Stolee (History) recounted here work with the union on thisplan. Since the parenthetical example was causing trouble, shemoved to eliminate it. The motion was seconded.
H. Howe agreed with Jane Morse that the words were not well-defined;removing the parenthetical would make this less specific.
Macula opposed removing the parenthetical. Removing it would makethe proposal less specific. We have a budget shortfall this year,so the resolution suggests a tuition increase to make up the shortfall.This may be rational, but it is not desirable.
C. Whalen (Student Senator) spoke in favor of removing the parentheticalexample.
The motion to remove the parenthetical example failed. Discussionof the resolution resumed. T. Macula proposed removing the word“rational” or else defining it specifically.
J. Harasta (Guest) was surprised that the tuition increase hasnot been presented to students. In contrast, GSTV tried to getout the word on the Afghanistan resolution. Meanwhile, the presentresolution “hits our pocketbooks.” Harastahad not had the chance to discuss the matter with anyone, andshe felt students needed to be aware of it.
Scott Flynn moved to postpone discussion on the resolution tothe next meeting. The motion was seconded.
Lovett noted that a rational tuition plan might mean that theState votes to increase budget for SUNY each year to restore funding;it might mean no tuition increase.
W. Cook called for a point of order, claiming that it was outof order for the Chair to make these remarks. The Parliamentarian ruled that the Chair had acted properly by announcing a temporary cession of her presiding role although she had failed to temporarily delegate her role properly.
The motion to postpone was seconded. R. Vasiliev opposed postponing at the moment, citing two reasons. First, the only place mentionof increases appeared in the parenthetical example, yet rationaltuition did not necessarily have to follow that direction. Second,the Governor must present his budget by 15 January 2002, so itwould be nice for him to have more of a unified voice from SUNY.
T. Macula favored postponing discussion to let students find outmore about the issue. He said that the need to let the Governor know in time was a red herring; everyone knows, he said, that the Governor’s January budget is “pie in the sky.”
M. Brummell thought the motion too ambiguous, believing it couldlead to chaos. The discussion of the rational tuition plan shouldbe postponed.
J. Gill understood the sense of urgency, yet still did not feelcomfortable representing students without discussion of the matter.
The question was called on the motion to postpone, and this passed.Subsequently, the motion to postpone discussion of the resolutionuntil the next Senate meeting in February 2002 passed 24-15.
The Senate moved to adjourn at 6.17PM.
Graham N Drake
College Senate Secretary