College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin 18
Pages 580 - 589
18 February 2000

Page Topic

581 Last Call for Nominations for Senate Officers and Senators at Large
581 Next Senate Meeting
581 Upcoming Committee Meetings
582 Outline of the SOFI Forum, Part 2

Messages from Chair
583 New Senator at Large
583 New Student Senators
583 Input sought: Constitutional amendment on FPC elections
583-585 University Faculty Senator's Report form January Plenary Session

586-588 College Senate (22 February)

588-589 Policy Committee (15 February)


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



Call for Nominations

Candidates for Spring College Senate Elections

The Committee on Nominations is compiling a slate of candidates for College Senate officers and senators at large. 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).

Next College Senate Meeting

Tuesday, February 22

4:00 pm, Newton 204

Upcoming Committee Meetings

Executive Committee 12:45 pm Mar. 2 South 110
Faculty Affairs Comm. 4:00 pm Mar. 14 South 309
Agenda: to discuss the report of Subcommittee on Student Evaluations

We alternate between desire and regret.

Outline of the SOFI Forum, Part 2
Held Feb. 16, repeated Feb. 17

Local Forms: Pros

  • Offers control over
-1)design (in relation to mission statement);
  • Faculty receive discursive comments along with numerical scores on same sheet
  • Offers continuity to see process over time
  • Relatively inexpensive base cost (approx. $5000)
  • Relatively brief
  • Information on local student demographics and self-evaluation of student effort
Local Forms: Cons
  • Hidden costs (labor intensive, work study, etc.)
  • Designed by political process/committee with no expertise in measurement & with multiple biases (e.g., disciplinary, pedagogical)
  • Lack of research basis
  • Questionable validity and replicability
  • At this moment, students and faculty may lack confidence in the local form
  • At this moment, local form does not allow disciplinary and pedagogical differences
National Forms: Pros
  • Expertise (e.g., in teaching and learning styles)
  • Research base (there are 2,000+ scholarly articles on the subject)
  • Offer validity and replicability
  • Designed by people with testing expertise
  • Campus neutral
  • May inspire greater confidence in the process among students and faculty
  • Historical continuity in data
  • Some labor would be transferred to the national organization
National Forms: Con
  • Lack of institutional control
  • Comments may be separated out from the numerical data
  • Base cost higher while some hidden costs will still remain
  • Could be more time consuming for students to complete
Examples of various national student evaluation forms are available in every dept. office


New Senator at Large

Chi-Ming Tang will serve as a senator-at-large-over-six-years for this term, replacing Patrice Case who is on sabbatical. He will replace Patrice as a member of the Student Affairs Committee. Welcome and thank you, Chi-Ming, for being willing to serve.

Welcome New Student Senators

Welcome to the following new student senators: Rebecca Bienvenue (Policy), Mary Carney (UCC), Rebecca LaFountain (SAC), Jennifer Pacella (SAC), Laura Stellrecht (SAC), and Carrie Thomas (SAC). Thank you for your willingness to serve!

Constitutional Amendment for Faculty Personnel Committee Elections

The Executive Committee will present a Constitutional amendment from the Committee on Nominatons at the March 7 meeting. The amendment specifies FPC election procedures, and will be voted on during the Spring elections. The wording is printed on pp. 564-565 of the Senate Bulletin. The Executive Committee is currently considering the amendment. Your input is welcomed by the Executive Committee and the Committee on Nominatons.

University Faculty Senate Meeting Report from
January Plenary Session

To: College Senate

From: Ed Wallace, University Faculty Senator

Re: Proceedings of the Plenary Meeting in Buffalo - 28-29 January 2000

Friday, 28 January 2000

    1. Senate President J. Flynn described to the Senate his communications with Central Administration and the Board of Trustees since the October meeting in Potsdam. He described ways in which the Trustees have responded to the bill of particulars described in last April's vote of no confidence. Specifically, Flynn indicated that he is now invited to address the Trustees at their meetings and that the faculty have been involved in searches for System Level appointments recently, most notably in the Chancellor's search. The Executive Committee will "assess the status of the vote of no confidence in the coming weeks." Progress is being made and we are "getting there, but aren't there yet."
    2. Senator Collier from Albany Center discussed aspects of the General Education Requirement. In particular, he referenced a letter from Provost Salins to the campus presidents concerning policies relating to the implementation of the policy. I have placed this letter, and the question/answer attachment on reserve at Milne Library. Notable among the clarifications is a statement students transferring from a community college with an AA/AS will not automatically satisfy core requirements, implying that current articulation agreements are "null and void" in this respect.
    3. Dave DeMarco presented an overview of the 2000-2001 Executive Budget. Compared to recent years, this budget is quite favorable. An approximate 9% funding increase, no proposed cut in TAP (I can’t recall when that happened last) etc. I have placed DeMarco's report on reserve in Milne also.
    4. Newly appointed Chancellor Bob King opened the afternoon session by addressed the Senate for the first time. King promised a renewed commitment on the part of the state in supporting SUNY. Statements such as "It has become remarkably clear to the governor and to me that the thing that is most vital to New York Sate is brainpower, and this requires having a strong State University," "It is my responsibility to be an advocate for the university," and "Part of my responsibility is to tell the story of SUNY, because it is compelling. We need to tell the story better and more often."

    5. King emphasized a need to increase funded research, corporate alliances and alumni support for the system. He has encouraged Provost Salins to raise the goal for the Research Initiative from $800 milli0n to $1 billion, in effect doubling funding in the last 5 years.

      King also indicated that he is committed to helping the SUNY Health Science Centers solve the financial problems they have experienced with their affiliated teaching hospitals.

    6. Provost Salins made a short presentation and fielded questions. He said that mission review had been started at 63 of the 64 campuses (Brooklyn HSC has not as yet begun the process).

    7. The Provost's Office is in the process of implementing SUNY Connect, an electronic library system wide.

      The SUNY Learning Network is in operation enrolling roughly 10,000 students in about 500 courses.

      Salins had several comments concerning the General Education policy that the trustees are implementing. Campus programs are due in the Provost's office within the next month. Salins will make the final decision. Partial implementation may occur if an entire program is not approved. Freshmen that enroll in fall 2000 will be required to complete the Gen. Ed. Requirement for graduation. Community Colleges will be required to provide at least 21 hours of the Gen. Ed. Requirements to students pursuing and AA/AS. The remaining hours would then be completed at a four-year campus. Some Gen. Ed. Courses may be available over SUNY Learning Network. Salins has taken the position that courses imported via distance learning must be adopted by the receiving campus. Salins also indicated that eventually there may be a common numbering system across campuses for core courses. Most senators felt that this idea should be closely monitored.

    8. On Saturday morning several resolutions were introduced:
    1. The Governance Committee moved to recommend that local campus governance organizations include a statement in their by-laws to encourage "direct communication … between the administration and the elected faculty representatives" in order to "help improve decision making in the University." This resolution passed unanimously.
    2. The governance committee moved to encourage local campus governance organizations to adopt a distance learning policy. This resolution passed unanimously.
    3. The Undergraduate Committee moved to recommend that the President and Provost of each unit ensure that local programs are reviewed continuously, with an account of such review to be prepared every five years. This resolution passed unanimously.
    4. The Graduate Studies and Research Committee moved to recommend that all University Faculty Senate mailings and other communications be dome electronically in order to reduce costs and increase timeliness. This resolution passed unanimously.
7. Two other resolutions were withdrawn in order to receive further study at the committee level. One was offered by the Governance Committee and concerned monitoring of the content of material posted on university -owned computers. The second was a resolution from the Campus Governance Leaders (CGL) requesting that the convener of the CGL's be named an official observer at Senate meetings. Each of these will be reintroduced at the spring plenary.

College Senate Meeting
22 February 2000
4:00 pm


Call to Order

Adoption of Agenda

Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
(7 December, Bulletin pp.531-540)

Senate Reports

Chair's Report B. Glass
President's Report

Report on Governor's Budget K. Levison, in C. Dahl's absence
Provost's Report B. Dixon
Treasurer's Report M. Mohan
University Faculty Senator's Report E. Wallace
Central Council Report A. Gridley

Reports of the Standing Committees

Undergraduate Curriculum T. Bazzett

Second Readings (A motion will be made to present these in packages by depts.)

Course Deletion: Econ 261 Legal Environment of the Economy (course content remains under Mgmt 261) (p. 482)
Course Revision: Change prerequisite for Mgmt 390 Strategic Management (p. 483)

Revision of Major Program: International Relations Major (pp. 484-488)

Several Departments
Deletion of courses not offered for five years: (All on p. 489)
Bio 205 Principles of Evolution

Intd 206 Discovery of Language

Intd 287 Comparative Labor Studies

Mgmt 282 Public Events Management

Mgmt 335 Consumer Behavior

Mgmt 336 Marketing Channels & Logistics

Mgmt 351 Operations Research

Mgmt 380 Business Research Methods

Plsc 321 Politics of Advanced Societies

Plsc 339 Problems of American Political Thought

Wrtg 100 Process of Writing

New Course: Socl 285 Sociology of Sex & Gender Diversity
(pp. 490-502)
Course Deletion: Socl 221 Field Project on Social Inequality (p. 503)

Revision of Minor Program: Environmental Studies (pp. 504-507)
Add Biol 311 Plant Taxonomy to third-level electives

Revision of Major Program: Delete Computer Science requirements (pp. 508-511)

Course Deletions: Hist 238 European Social History of 19th & 20th Centuries (p. 512)

Hist. 256 Youth in Early America (p. 512)

School of Performing Arts
Course Revision: Danc 265 Dance Ensemble (p. 513)

Add corequisite

New Course: Phys 314 Fluid Mechanics (pp. 514-517)

Revision of Minor Program: Linguistics Minor (pp. 518-522)

Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review B. Gohlman
Graduate Academic Affairs
Judy Bushnell
Faculty Affairs N. Schiavetti
Student Affairs E. Crosby

Unfinished Business

New Business


Minutes of the Undergraduate Academic Policy, Core and Review Committee, February 15, 2000

Members present: Keith Barnes, Rebecca Bienvenue, Charlie Freeman, Ed Gillen,Bill Gohlman (Chair), Savi Iyer, Steve Kirsh,Sonja Landes, Janice Lovett, Joyce Miller, Jeff Over, Emily Spilman, Don Watt

Guest: Tom Greenfield

The meeting was called to order at 4:08 p.m. by Chair Gohlman.

The first order of business was a request from the Executive Committee to consider the current text of the Constitutional Amendment regarding the Faculty Personnel Committee Election protocols. The committee discussed several places in the amendment which were considered ambiguous or imprecise and suggested changes to be forwarded to the Executive Committee.

The second order of business was the consideration of the proposal from the General Education Committee recommending a foreign language requirement to be added to the Graduation requirements. Dean Greenfield was available to answer questions. D. Watt asked for clarification of the institutional costs of implementing such a requirement. The Dean shared estimates of the number of incoming students who would be able to waive the requirement based on their high school curricula versus the number who would require one or more semesters of college foreign language instruction. The estimate

for language course sections would be between 15 and 20 sections per semester. D. Watt then asked whether 4 years of high school language was the level of proficiency which should be expected from a Geneseo graduate. It was not the preferred level but it was the minimum level. S. Iyer asked whether students would receive credit or a waiver for the high school language. The students would have the requirement waived. J. Lovett asked

about the discrepancy between the level of proficiency which students with four years of high school language show when they are placed following completion of the Foreign Language Placement Exam and the requirement for proficiency through 202. Since few students with four years of language place higher than 201, isn't waiving the requirement inaccurate? Having more language was only seen to benefit students. She then asked what would happen to the projected need for faculty as guidance counselors recognized

the advantage of completing the fourth year of language before entering Geneseo and advised more students in that direction. If demand decreased, foreign language faculty would be able to participate in other areas, e.g. the Humanities program as is currently the situation. E. Gillen asked if whether the reverse could hold for people in the foreign languages who now teach in the Humanities, could they become exclusively teaching in foreign languages. D. Watt suggested specifically hiring persons who could switch

to other areas, comparative literature or international studies, in case projected student numbers go down. S. Iyer asked whether any courses could count towards another General Education requirement, for example Multicultural, as a way to decrease the loss of free electives for students who may need up to 12 hours of foreign language. B. Gohlman said that Foreign Language is considering some "creative" ways to complete the requirement. D. Watt asked about student perceptions of the proposal. Dean Greenfield said there had been no time yet for student forums or discussion in the Lamron. K. Barnes asked whther this would be an addition to the current requirements or a substitution. It would be an addition. He commented that Gen. Ed. requirements seem to always reduce the number of electives. Dean Greenfield replied that in this case it was the Board of Trustees who appeared to be distrustful of student's ability to graduate

with a balanced curriculum. E. Spilman and S. Iyer asked what was the minimum requirement requested by the Trustees. The minimum would be 3 yrs. high school or 1 semester college. D. Watt asked whether positions would come from existing lines or new lines. That was unknown but the positions would be phased in. S. Iyer asked what other school's language requirements were. Schools which did have a requirement usually had at least two semesters although four semesters was at the high end. Brockport is

proposing the same level as us. The Trustees are asking for graduates in 2004 and beyond to have completed some foreign language proficiency requirement.

Discussion was ended and the proposal was voted on: yea - 9, nay -2, abstain - 0. The proposal passed.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Janice A. Lovett