College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin 17
Pages 560 - 579
11 February 2000

Contents
Page  Topic
  Announcements
561 Call for Nominations for Senate Officers and Senators at Large
561 Spring Senate Meeting Schedule
561 Upcoming Committee Meetings
562-563 Outline of the SOFI Forum, Part 1 
  Messages from the Chair
564-565 Procedures for Electing Faculty Personnel Committee 
566 Foreign Language Proposal 
  Minutes
567-571 Executive Committee (3 February)
572-573 Student Affairs Committee(9 December 1999)
574-579 Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (1 February)


SOFI Forum, Part 2

Feb. 16 or Feb. 17
(see inside for details)

________________________________________________

Correspondence: Becky L. Glass, Department of Sociology, Sturges 122C
E-mail: senate@geneseo.edu Phone: 245-5336

________________________________________________________________________

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Call for Nominations

Candidates for Spring College Senate Elections

The Committee on Nominations is compiling a slate of candidates for the following College Senate positions:

Vice Chair

Secretary

Treasurer

Senator at Large (over six years)

Senator at Large (six years and under)

Please suggest candidates for these positions by Monday, February 21 to a member of the Nominations Committee: Jim Allen (Psychology), Randy Bailey (History), Rachel Hall (English), Pat Murphy (Sociology), Wendy Pogozelski (Chemistry), Anne-Marie Reynolds ( SOPA). The Committee on Nominations will present its slate of nominees at the All College Meeting, March 7, 4:00 pm, Newton 204.
 

Spring College Senate Meetings

February 22
March 7 (All College Meeting)
March 28
April 11
May 2

All at 4:00 pm, Newton 204

Upcoming Committee Meetings
 
 

Executive Committee 12:45 pm Feb. 17 South 110
FAC Subcommittee 4:00 pm Feb. 15 Ask Nick Schiavetti
Policy Committee 4:00 pm Feb. 15 Welles 111
Policy agenda items:foreign language requirement , School of Education entrance requirements, minimum-competence grade for Western Humanities courses
UCC  4:00 pm Feb. 15 Ask Terry Bazzett

Open Forum on

The Future of the SOFIs
Part 2

Wed. Feb. 16 7:15 - 9:30 pm

or (attend the day convenient for you)

Thurs. Feb. 17 12:45 - 2:00 pm

Meetings in Newton 204

Presentations and discussion to be led by the

FAC Subcommittee on Student Evaluations (S. Bandoni, L. Bosch, B. Falk, B. Haskins, M. Lima, B. McCoy, L. Sancilio, N. Schiavetti, H. Waddy)

Students, faculty, and other interested parties are encouraged to participate!

_____________________________________________________________________

Outline of the SOFI Forum, Part 1
held Feb. 9, repeated Feb. 10

1. PREMISES

  • What are the PREMISES underlying a student ratings system? That is, what is the INSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING?
ACTIVE LEARNING
  • Does the institution wish to use the student ratings system to encourage and support the active learning of its students?
  • Should the form ask students to assess their own contributions to the learning process?
TEACHING STYLES
  • Does the institution wish to encourage a wide variety of approaches to teaching?
DISCIPLINE SENSITIVITY
  • Does the institution seek to recognize the constraints of teaching formats dictated by disciplinary requirements?
DIVERSITY
  • Does the institution value diversity?
  • Does the institution seek to implement a ratings system that is tolerant of class, culture and sex difference, as well as individual idiosyncracies and personality?
2. FUNCTIONS
  • What are the FUNCTIONS of a student ratings system?
PERSONNEL DECISIONS (SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT):
  • Assist in renewals, tenure decisions, and promotions
  • Balance with peer review reports and candidate portfolios
STUDENT COURSE CHOICE:
  • Allow students to make judgments about faculty teaching
EDUCATION:
  • Express and reinforce the institution's philosophy of teaching and learning
COURSE AND TEACHING IMPROVEMENT (FORMATIVE ASSISTANCE):
  • May conflict with the summative function
  1. FEATURES
  • To fulfill the four purposes of
  • SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT
  • STUDENT COURSE CHOICE
  • EDUCATION
  • FORMATIVE ASSISTANCE
  • In accordance with the institution's philosophy of teaching and learning
RELIABILITY
  • Consistency in administration
  • Internal consistency
  • Consistency over time
  • 10 or more raters and over two thirds of the class rating
VALIDITY
  • Measure the desired outcomes of the teaching process
  • Provide clear, simple, and unambiguous language
PHILOSOPHY
  • Reflect the institution's philosophy of teaching and learning
RESPONSIBILITY
  • Make clear the institution's expectations of the roles played by faculty member and students in the learning process
FEEDBACK
  • Provide detailed and constructive feedback for the improvement of a faculty member's course and teaching approach(es)
FAIRNESS
  • Recognize potential distortions in the numerical scores
MESSAGES FROM CHAIR

Draft wording for proposed Constitutional amendment on the procedures for electing members to the Faculty Personnel Committee

This wording was developed by the Nominations Committee and will be reviewed by the Executive Committee before presentation to the Senate on March 7 (see Executive Committee minutes of Feb. 3, pp. 567-571 in this Bulletin). Questions and suggestions are welcomed and may be directed to the Executive Committee or to the Nominations Committee.

Article III: Standing Committees of the Faculty

Section 3: Committee on Faculty Personnel

a. Membership:

[add] 7. The Nominations Committee shall ensure that the mandatory number of Full Professors actually have been elected to membership.

 b. Selection of Committee Members

[delete]

The process of nominations and selection will be decided by the Committee on Nominations, in consultation with the College Senate Chair, and published in the College Senate Bulletin.

[add]

1. In the Spring prior to an election, the Nominations Committee shall determine and announce in the College Senate Bulletin, (1) the number of Faculty Personnel Committee members to be elected and (2) the mandatory number of Full Professors to be elected in a given year.

In the Spring prior to an election, the Nominations Committee shall create a list from records housed in the Provost's Office of those Associate and Full Professors who are eligible for election (i.e., omitting Department Chairs and individuals from Departments with continuing Faculty Personnel Committee members).

Prior to the end of Spring semester, the Nominations Committee shall send a letter to all eligible individuals asking them to indicate a willingness or unwillingness to serve.

Disinterested persons will be responsible for asking to have their names removed.

2. During the first week of Fall semester, the Chair of the Nominations Committee shall present a list of responses from the Spring letter to the Nominations Committee.

Members of the Nominations Committee shall immediately call all eligible individuals who failed to respond to the Spring letter of inquiry to ascertain their willingness accept nomination to the Faculty Personnel Committee.

3. By the middle of the second week of Fall semester, the Nominations Committee shall construct a list of eligible persons willing to serve and shall distribute that list to all faculty and librarians for final revision.

By the third Monday in September, the final list shall be forwarded to all Department Chairs with a charge to departments that they nominate no more than four persons from the list, and no more than one from their respective Departments.

Two Fridays prior to the October All-College meeting will serve as the deadline for departments to return their nominees to the Chair of the Nominations Committee.

The Nominations Committee shall call all department chairs who fail to submit nominations by the deadline.

4. The Nominations Committee shall compile the nominations from departments and create the slate of nominees for presentation to the Chair of Senate by the Wednesday prior to the October All-College meeting, for inclusion in the Senate Bulletin.

The slate shall include at least triple the number of positions to be filled. (Additional nominees will be included in the case of tie votes emerging from Department nominations).

The Nominations Committee shall ensure that the number of Full Professors among the nominees emerging from the Departments shall consist of at least double the mandatory number to be elected.

Proposal to add a Foreign Language Requirement to the General Education Program of the College
The Policy Committee of the College Senate will consider the following proposal this semester.

To: Becky Glass, Chair of Senate

From: Tom Greenfield, Dean of the College and Chair, SUNY BOT General Education Response Committee

As you are aware the SUNY Board of Trustees Resolution on General Education requires all SUNY institutions to include proficiency in a foreign language in their general education programs and graduation requirements.

Our committee, composed of the General Education Committee and the general education/core area chairs, recommends the following in response to that resolution.

A standard of proficiency in foreign language at Geneseo should be defined minimally as:

Proficiency through fourth semester (202), college level in a single language; or

Completion of four units (level IV) of NYS high school foreign language or its out-of-state equivalent; or

Other appropriate performance or competence based equivalency as approved by the Foreign Language department or other appropriate body.

The Committee presents this proposal for consideration by the Senate. Members of the Committee are available for consultation as you and College Senate see fit.

The scope of this proposal (four semesters or four years of high school) is generally considered to be at the "high end" of college general education requirements in foreign language. Two or three semesters of college and/or three years of high school are common options. In fact, our committee considered such options in our deliberations. However, a majority of the members of the committee believe that Geneseo's commitment to a rigorous general education program and its aspirations for national recognition as a liberal arts college compel us to meet a high standard. This proposal is presented in that spirit.

In offering this proposal, the Committee is fully aware that significant resource and logistical issues present themselves immediately. As deliberations proceed, my office will be available to you as needed to provide information and other assistance.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.

Minutes of Senate Executive Committee
February 3, 2000

Present: B. Glass, C. Leary, J. Ballard, M. Mohan, A. Gridley, N. Schiavetti, B. Gohlman, J. Bushnell, T. Bazzett, E. Crosby, E. Wallace, K. Cylke, B. Dixon.

Call To Order: Chair B. Glass called the meeting to order at 12:45 pm.

Adoption of Agenda: The agenda was approved as printed.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting on December 3, 1999, were approved as printed on pp. 540-543 of College Senate Bulletin #14.

President’s Report (C. Dahl): C. Dahl was in Albany for the Chancellor’s budget presentation. B. Dixon reported for C. Dahl on two items:

  1. The cost assessment for the new sciences building has been completed, and it appears that approximately $34 million will be needed ($12 million more than is in the currently budgeted item). C. Dahl is working with legislators to see that a bill for funding is introduced; he also is working with the Foundation on fundraising plans. When funded, the project will most likely involve an addition and renovation of Greene. Consultants are currently on campus to help develop a facilities master plan. Additional information on the site plan for the sciences building will be provided when available.
  2. The budget outlook for SUNY is generally favorable. It appears the budget will be sufficient to cover the negotiated salary increases, as well as about $24 million more.
Provost’s Report (B. Dixon): B. Dixon reported that the Strategic Planning Group is now meeting again. All faculty should have received the letter from President Dahl describing the work done by the group so far and indicating the upcoming agenda. The Planning Group is currently working on language describing six major goals. Next, they will begin campus-wide discussion groups to provide explanation about the selection of these goals. B. Dixon encouraged wide participation to help integrate the budget with plans for the future. Soon after these discussions, a series of forums will focus on the Middle States re-accreditation process. Eventually, the linkage between these two processes will be clarified.

Chair’s Report (B. Glass): B. Glass reported on four items:

  1. An office space on the first floor of Blake A (above the Hub) will be renovated as a Faculty Lounge. Dan Repinski and Sid Bosch were asked to serve as liaison to the administration in planning the renovation to best meet faculty needs. As part of the project, the Senate office (also in Blake), will get an upgrade of its current furnishings.
  2. The General Education Response Committee (composed of the General Education Committee and the Core Chairs) has proposed a two-year (4 semester) language requirement (or equivalent) to meet the Board of Trustee’s foreign language requirement. Approximately 60% of incoming first-year students meet the requirement at admission. The proposal will now go to the Senate Policy Committee for discussion. If implemented, the proposal will eventually require four to five additional faculty lines.

  3.  

     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    B. Gohlman noted that most incoming students either satisfy the requirement or pass the placement test.

  4. Another item to be sent to the Policy Committee is the proposed wording for a Constitutional Amendment on the Faculty Personnel Committee elections. The new wording includes time frames (rather than specific dates) that will work every year. The proposed amendment is very specific compared to other amendments; this specificity seems justified given that the issue of FPC is sensitive and given that specificity will preclude the need to rely on institutional memory or to require each future Nominating Committee to develop its own procedure.

  5.  

     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    J. Bushnell questioned why the amendment was to be sent to the Policy Committee. Its charge refers to Academic, Core, and Standards policies; the Faculty Affairs Committee may be more appropriate given its charge regarding promotion and teaching. B. Gohlman stated no opposition to moving the discussion from Policy to FAC. B. Glass noted that her thinking was that an amendment was appropriate for Policy to discuss. N. Schiavetti noted that the current agenda for FAC would preclude addressing the amendment soon. B. Dixon asked whether the amendment constituted a fundamental change or just fine-tuning of the procedures. B. Glass explained that the procedures are currently established at the discretion of the Nominating Committee. B. Gohlman and K. Cylke suggested that Executive Committee could consider the amendment rather than passing it on to a standing committee. B. Glass agreed that Executive Committee could do so. N. Schiavetti suggested that a change to the intent of the currently constitutional language about FPC might require consideration by FAC; however, fine-tuning of the election procedures might best be considered by the Executive Committee. B. Glass asked whether there was opposition to letting Policy Committee review the amendment to get fresh input. She also noted that we can either finish the process now (by putting forward the amendment for a vote) or we can implement the proposed procedure and wait until next year to formally adopt an amendment. K. Cylke noted that, in the spirit of the current policy, the Nominating Committee did as asked in preparing a proposed amendment; the proposal should be sent forward for adoption this year. B. Gohlman asked if the members of Executive could read over the proposal, make suggestions, and decide on its fate at the next meeting. C. Leary also suggested that the proposed wording could be published in the Bulletin now to allow feedback from campus members. B. Glass agreed to do so.

  6. The Campus Governance Leaders (CGLs) met in Buffalo during the University Faculty Senate meeting last weekend. As an unofficial body, the CGLs have no real access to the floor of the UFS. Consequently, the CGLs passed a resolution sending the convenor of the CGLs to the UFS as an observer (to allow speaking before the UFS). CGLs also discussed problems on some campuses regarding a "rift" between the campus governance bodies and their UFS senators.
  7. Consultants are currently on campus to develop criteria for prioritizing long-term facilities planning. Any Executive Committee member who wishes to provide input should contact B. Glass.
Vice-Chair’s Report (C. Leary): C. Leary reported that the due date of March 3 will be met by the Excellence Awards Committee.

Treasurer’s Report (M. Mohan): M. Mohan reported that 38 donors have contributed during this year’s College Senate Fund Campaign. A total of $850.00 has been collected, with $637.50 designated for the Senate Fund and $212.50 for the Roark Fund. Additional donations have been made through the Foundation, including a donation by one of our faculty emeriti to the Roark fund.

University Faculty Senator (E. Wallace): E. Wallace reported that the UFS met on Friday and Saturday in Buffalo. E. Wallace has noticed a big change in the mood of the Senate since last Spring, and attributes some of the change to the good working relationship between President Joe Flynn and the Board of Trustees. Robert King addressed the UFS, and his comments suggested that he indeed has the best interests of SUNY in mind. Among other things, King reported a 9% increase in SUNY funding across the board, as well as plans for separate funding for the teaching hospitals. UFS passed several minor resolutions, a report on which will be placed in the bulletin. Provost Salins sent a letter to UFS regarding the implementation of the General Education requirements. The Q&A format letter will be on reserve in the library. In sum, Provost Salins states that the Gen. Ed. requirements are "for real" and they will be implemented on time; no time waivers will be given. B. Dixon echoed that the Provost has conveyed seriousness about implementing the Gen. Ed. requirements; Provost Salins also has indicated that the new Chancellor is committed to General Education. E. Wallace concluded by noting that there has been some discussion of using SUNY net for General Education requirements, but that the low enrollment caps on available courses makes this option less workable.

Central Council (A. Gridley): A. Gridley reported on five items:

  1. There are currently six vacancies for student senator positions; replacements are urgently needed. The vacancies include one for UCC, one for Policy, and four for SAC. Applications are due to A. Gridley by Friday (2/4/2000), and student senators will be selected by early next week.
  2. One student is needed for the intersession/summer session task force, since one student was unable to continue with the task force this semester. That appointment will be made as soon as possible.
  3. The Student Association is funding four test runs for a bus service to Rochester called the Rochester Shuttle Bus. The service is a response to suggestions from students that they would like to get to Rochester more easily and more often to experience the variety of opportunities that Rochester offers. The four test runs are scheduled at different times of day on Friday, February 18, Saturday, Feb. 19, Thursday, Feb. 24, and Sunday, Feb. 27.
  4. A. Gridley will be unable to attend the Senate meeting on February 22 because she will be in Israel. She will find a senator to assume her duties in her absence.
  5. The College Union celebrated its 30th Birthday yesterday. A. Gridley distributed a letter sent to B. Glass and C. Dahl from Kevin Lee requesting Senate to pass a resolution in honor and thanks to the union and its staff.
Faculty Affairs Committee (N. Schiavetti): The Student Evaluation of Teaching Subcommittee will sponsor a series of forums on the SOFI’s. Part I will provide theoretical background on the use of student evaluation instruments, and Part II will address practical methods for obtaining student evaluations. The purpose of the forums will be to make the FAC discussions about this issue available to the rest of the campus, and to get feedback from the campus on the issue. Two versions of each forum (Part I and Part II) will be offered on a Wednesday night and a Thursday "free" period to allow broad participation. The dates are February 9 and 10, and February 16 and 17. All forums will be held in Newton 204. The subcommittee has charted the pros and cons of staying with the current form or using a national form. An outline of the Part I and Part II presentations are included in this bulletin. Flyers have been posted, and examples of some of the national forms under consideration are available in packets distributed to different campus departments. After the forums are complete, the subcommittee will report recommendations to the full FAC, which will then report to the Senate. FAC hopes to complete the process in time for first and second Senate readings to be finished in April and May.

Graduate Affairs (J. Bushnell): The committee met Wednesday to discuss a policy change requested by Education. This change would allow students to have more than two tries to pass comprehensive examinations. The proposal was rejected by the committee.

Policy Committee (B. Gohlman): The Policy Committee will meet next Tuesday to begin discussion of the proposed Foreign Language requirement. The committee also expects to receive proposals from the School of Education, via UCC, which it also will consider.

B. Glass asked about last semester’s issue of office hours. B. Gohlman reported that the committee is still gathering information. Student Affairs (E. Crosby): The committee met with campus administrators to discuss the potential use of space for informal entertainment by and for students on the weekends. K. Trainor is leading some efforts to explore possibilities. SAC may consider offering a resolution for Senate to express support of these efforts. Another issue was brought forward in the last meeting. In answer to questions, Tom Bell stated that alcohol was served at some functions on the campus in the past. Dr. Bonfiglio asked for feedback from the campus regarding feeling about this option. A. Gridley noted that the Student Association has discussed this issue and could give some feedback to SAC. There is much student interest in having a Rathskellar on campus. B. Glass suggested that SAC seek opinions in person, via forums, rather than in questionnaire form. Undergraduate Curriculum (T. Bazzett): The School of Education must adhere to new State Regulations. The School therefore has submitted proposals to change all its programs. Although the School has been working on these proposals for over a year, the new regulations did not arrive until September, and the proposals were received by UCC about two weeks ago. The local deadline to pass the proposals is April 1, and there is some concern about feasibility. UCC will meet weekly. One state regulation involves an admissions standard that addresses more than one source of information. The Policy Committee will examine this proposal. N. Schiavetti noted that the same certification regulations affect Speech Pathology programs. L. House and N. Schiavetti have examined the changes, and it appears that only one additional 3-hour course (in Reading) will be needed for the course of study. E. Wallace asked whether the additional course could be met within the program or externally. N. Schiavetti replied that it could be either, but after consulting with D. Showers, it appears that addition of the Reading course from Education is the best option. The problem for Speech Pathology is that the regulations of three different licensing/certification bodies must be met. T. Bazzett noted that the same is a problem for Education, but that many more credit hours are involved, and the students currently find it difficult to schedule and finish all the requirements. E. Wallace asked whether the final version of the State regulations has been received. T. Bazzett responded that it is unclear, but the committee will proceed on the basis of presently available information. Unfinished Business:
  1. Executive Committee discussed a list of potential nominees for the Supported Professorship Committee. A list of several names was determined. These will be sent to President Dahl, who will make the appointments.
  2. The interim report of the Intersession/Summer Session Task Force was distributed. B. Glass will send to Executive Committee members a list of questions she has generated for the Task Force. She requested that comments and any additional questions for the Task Force to consider, be sent to her.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Joan C. Ballard
Secretary of the College Senate