College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin No. 12

Pages 193-254

19 Feb. 2002


Page    Topic

193      Contents


194            Spring 2002 College Senate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule

194            Changes in Senate Membership

194            Senate Bulletin Mailing List

194            Nominations for Senate Offices

194            Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Scholarship and Creative Activities

195      Minutes of the Student Affairs Committee, 27 November 2001

196      Research Council Minutes, November 26, 2001

197      Research Council Minutes, January 22, 2002

198      College Senate Executive Committee, 5 February 2002

204      Minutes of the College Senate Meeting, 5 February 2002

210      Minutes of the Faculty Affairs Committee, February 12, 2001

212      Minutes of the Graduate Aacademic Affairs Committee, February 12, 2002


                  Correspondence:  Janice A. Lovett, Department of Biology,

                  Bailey 210; e-mail:; phone: 245-5413



Spring 2002 College Senate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule

         February 26     Executive Committee Meeting

            Faculty Affairs Committee, 4:00 pm, South 110

         March 5  All-College Meeting and College Senate Meeting

         March 12         Student Affairs Committee

         April 2     Executive Committee Meeting

         April 9     College Senate Meeting

         April 16   Student Affairs Committee

         April 23   Executive Committee Meeting

         April 30   College Senate Meeting

         May 7     Student Affairs Committee

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 receive a copy please send your name as you would like it to appear on the mailing label and your campus address to the Senate Chair, Janice Lovett, or 210 Bailey.

Nominations for Senate Offices

The Nominations Committee is seeking nominations for Senate Officers and is required by the Constitution of the Faculty to present a slate consisting of at least two nominees for each position. Please, consider seriously running for Senate. If you would like to contact the Nominations Committee about running, you can contact Ted Everett directly (Philosophy Department,


Nominations for a BRAND NEW Excellence Award

(announced Jan. 22, 2002) are needed by FEBRUARY 27

to Terry Bazzett, Vice-Chair, Psychology Dept.

Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Scholarship

and Creative Activities

Criteria for Selection:

Evidence of sound scholarship and creative productivity can be demonstrated through a variety of avenues, including grants, release time, honors, etc. The selection criteria for this award shall include a reasonable combination of, but not be restricted to, those appearing below. Nominees for the award should be individuals who have:

For Scholarship:

An excellent, sustained record of research publications in peer-reviewed journals, and/or research monologues, and/or research-oriented texts;

Shown evidence of participation in national and/or international conferences, presentation of papers published in conference proceedings and/or digets, patents awarded, grants secured, and citation of work by individuals or groups other than the nominee’s collaborators;

For Creative Productivity:

Shown evidence of excellence in any other type of creative or scholarly activity appropriate for the specific unit oor disciplione, such as exhibitions, shows, performances, productions, and stage work;

Shown evidence of critical reviews, grants, inclusion of works in permanent collections, retrospectives, and other forms of external recognition and acclaim.

Nominees must be full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty with at least three years of full-time service at Geneseo prior to this academic year. A short letter of nomination can be sent to Terry Bazzett by Wednesday, February 26, 2002. We are aware that this is a very short nomination period but a completed recommendation from the campus can be received in Albany no later than March 29.

Minutes of the Student Affairs Committee 27 November 2001

Bailey 211 

Present:   J. DeCeu, M. Brummell, D. Sullivan, A. Stanley, M. Lima, J.-L. Liu, J. Jungbluth, M. Dunn, J. Gill, K. Rank, L. Taczak, R. McEwen, C. Faulkner, C.-M. Tang, D. McPherson, A. Gu  Guests: M. Crain, A. Timmons, B. Bonfiglio

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.  

1.   J-L Liu reported that a fax machine is now available for public use in the Milne Library

2.   D. Sullivan asked whether there were any student concerns about delays in the KnightWeb course registration system. There was general agreement that the foul-ups were disruptive and unfortunate, but no bitterness was expressed. It is hoped that the system will mature and operate as advertised in the near future.

3.  J-L Liu reported on the prospects for improvements in the Safe Car system. She found that SUNY Fredonia has a bus system that provides transportation to local destinations for a modest fee (ca. $7.50 per semester). Members of the public have access to the system for a modest fare, and by providing service to the public the college has been eligible for grant support from the state. B. Bonfiglio indicated that SUNY Geneseo is very interested in developing a similar plan, with hopes to implement it by next fall. Discussion ensued regarding the source of funding, and whether it would alter the current parking fee. One proposal would change the parking fee to a general transportation fee, with combined parking privileges and bus privileges. R. McEwen asked whether this would encourage more students to park on campus and cause more parking congestion. B. Bonfiglio indicated that the administration is looking into a variety of funding sources, and is seeking quotes from commercial bus services.


4.   M. Brummell expressed concern about possible racial profiling by the campus police. M. Lima and D. McPherson drafted a letter from the SAC to Vice President Caren to convey this concern, and it was transmitted over the signatures of all the committee members we could track down at the next senate meeting. The consensus of the SAC is for an open forum on the issue. Further discussion of this issue is expected at the next SAC meeting.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Duane McPherson

Research Council Minutes, November 26, 2001

Present: Nader Asgary, Doug Baldwin, Ganie DeHart, Elizabeth Hall, Doug Harke, Roxanne Johnston, Jeff Over

The meeting was called to order in the President's Conference Room at approximately 12:35 p.m.

Five policy issues were discussed:

1.   Avoiding conflict of interest in grant review.

      Doug Harke reviewed the current practice of the council. Council members who are applying or who have students applying for major awards reviewed by the entire council (faculty summer fellowships, Dean Johnston and Geneseo Foundation student assistantships, and undergraduate summer fellowships) do not participate in review of the awards for which they or their students are applying. There has not been a policy about participation in reviews of travel grants, undergraduate research grants, research development awards, and incentive grants.

      Discussion of the issues ensued. The following conclusions were reached: (a) For awards reviewed by the entire council, the current practice should stand. (b) For research travel grants and undergraduate research grants, the council concluded that it was not feasible to exclude council members who were applicants or faculty mentors of applicants from review of applications because in most years nearly every council member is involved in one or both of these programs. (c) For Research Development Awards and Incentive Grants, it was decided that council members who

intend to apply for either program should make their intentions known to the council chair at the beginning of the semester and should not be assigned to the research support subcommittee, which reviews applications for these programs.

2.   Clarification of time lag between summer research fellowships.

      Although the policy for awarding summer fellowships has been to require faculty members to wait five years between fellowships, this policy is not completely clear in the existing description of the programs. It was agreed that an explicit statement requiring applicants to wait five years between fellowships of any type (i.e., Presidential Summer Fellowship and Mid-Career Fellowship, separate Mid-Career Fellowships, or Mid-Career Fellowship and Roemer Summer Research Fellowship) will be added to the description of each fellowship program.

3.   Minimum GPA for student awards.

      The council agreed to keep the requirement of a 2.5 GPA in the major as the cut-off for Undergraduate Research Grants. It was decided not to specify any further role of GPA in evaluating student proposals.

4.   Preference rules for student assistantships.

      The council decided to remove the preference for juniors from the description of the assistantship programs but to keep the preference for faculty members who haven't had a student assistant before. However, the council agreed that it should be made clear that this preference would come into play only if two faculty members had proposals equally worthy of funding, one had not yet received this award, and it was not possible to fund both. It was also agreed that it should be emphasized that assistantships are considered awards to the faculty member, not to the

student. Roxanne Johnston and Ganie DeHart will work on appropriate wording.

5.   Proposal deadlines.

      The council agreed that current proposal deadlines are not problematic. However, the published deadline for Undergraduate Research Grants for spring 2002 (2/1/02) does not follow Research Council procedures established last year, which state that proposals for Undergraduate Research Grants are to be due the second Friday of the semester. It was agreed to postpone the deadline for spring to February 8, 2002. Roxanne Johnston will send out notices to faculty and students and will ask the Provost to announce the change in the next Department Chairs' meeting. The council also agreed that the description of the Undergraduate Research Grants program should be changed to include the funding priorities for research and travel proposals established by the council last year.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:20.

Respectfully submitted,

Ganie DeHart

Chair, Research Council

Research Council Minutes, January 22, 2002

Present: Doug Baldwin, Ganie DeHart (chair), Sue DioGuardi, Doug Harke, Duane McPherson, Dave Meisel, Wendy Pogozelski

The meeting was called to order in South Hall 110 at approximately 1:05 p.m.

Five proposals for Presidential Summer Fellowships and two proposals for Mid-Career Fellowships were discussed. The council decided to recommend five proposals for funding and to request additional information from two applicants before making a final recommendation on their funding.

The chair noted that all three subcommittees of Research Council need to schedule meetings in the first few weeks of the semester, to review proposals with deadlines in late January and early February. Wendy Pogozelski and Duane McPherson will convene the Research Support Subcommittee (Cunningham, Eisenberg, Harke, McPherson, and Pogozelski). Anne Adamson will convene the Travel Subcommittee (Asgary, Bosch, Hall, and Meisel). Sue DioGuardi will convene the Student Research Subcommittee (Baldwin, DeHart, DioGuardi, Over, Reynolds, and three students).

The chair summarized proposal deadlines for the rest of the year and suggested that the council schedule a meeting with the Provost to hear her assessment of the funding situation and other research-related issues. Doug Harke reported briefly on recent activities of the Office of Sponsored Research.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Ganie DeHart

Chair, Research Council

College Senate Executive Committee

5 February 2002

12:45 p.m.

Wadsworth 204

Present: J. Bushnell, C. Dahl, , G. Drake, C. Filice, C. Freeman, W. Gohlman, C. Leary, J. Lieberman, J. Lovett (Chair), J. McLean, D. McPherson. Guest: Associate Provost D. Gordon


Both were approved unanimously.


Chair's Report

Over the break, Chair Lovett attended the second plenary session of the University Faculty Senate. Two matters came from the meeting of Campus Governance Leaders. A few years ago, when the General Education mandates came down from the SUNY Board of Trustees, the Campus Governance Leaders’ relationship to University Faculty Senate was undefined; they were invited to one meeting a year. There was no formal way to bring matters to University Faculty Senate. This was unproblematic until the  General Education mandate came to campuses, there was an immediate need for Campus Governance Leader to communicate with the University Faculty Senate. Campus Governance Leaders felt as if they had been  ignored. So last year they replaced the Chair of the University Faculty Senate, and then the Governance Committee of that body was asked to come up with a resolution to formalize the relationship between Campus Governance Leaders and University Faculty Senate. The Campus Governance Leaders will now come to all three plenary sessions; they will have their own room and will be able to bring motions before University Faculty Senate.

The way our governance is set up, our own Campus Governance Leaders are around for only one year. Most campuses have a two-year Campus Governance Leader. Lovett felt that, given increased contact with University Faculty Senate, it might be necessary to do this; we might need to think about our Constitution and how it is arranged, and what the impact would be. How do we have a Constitutional Convention?

President's Report

President Dahl said he would talk about the State Budget this afternoon at the College Senate Meeting. The Budget contains only the same amount as last year. This amounts to a $1.3-1.5 million cut because we would still have to pay salaries negotiated by the Governor’s Office. The Governor also came up with a surprise proposal on TAP which Dahl described as “odious.” Under the plan students would only get two-thirds of their TAP money while at college; they would get the other third after graduation, providing that they graduated on time. If students had to borrow to supplement the missing TAP, the State will let them do so at interest. Dahl doesn't think this proposal will go forward and said the College would lobby against it.

The only bright spot in the Budget was that it raised the authorization levels for spending of the money that the College would bring in from sources other than State tax dollars. Dahl noted that, in the past, the State has tended not to authorize spending tuition revenues even if the revenues are there.

In other matters, Dahl announced that, since nominations are in for campus-based awards (two supported professorships and a new research professorship), Dahl would consult with the Executive Committee to get names for five faculty and two students for the awards committee. The Provost, after observing this process for the past four or five years, suggested that we define the membership of this committee as it had been defined in the past, but to break it down as follows: there should be one Distinguished Professor, at least one past recipient of a supported professorship and at least one past recipient of a mentoring/advising or part-time teaching award, two faculty at large and two students (in consultation with Student Government and the Honors Program). We could probably institutionalize this as a College Committee rather than as a Senate Committee, and we could put it into the by-laws. The advantages are a stronger committee with an appropriate mix for the task at hand and continuity. We could even have some of the faculty and student terms staggered to maintain some continuity.

Lovett asked if the President wanted names emailed to her and then forwarded to him. Dahl concurred. He added that the Excellence Awards Committee is already set up. (During Becky Glass’s time in office, the College shifted some of the work from the Excellence Awards Committee to the Supported Professorship Awards Committee.) These measures will make it easier for us in governance and provide a more balanced Committee.

McLean asked when names would be needed. By Monday, Lovett said. The President will then receive the names and make appointments, and the Provost will chair the Committee.

Provost's Report

No report.


Vice-Chair’s Report

No report.

Past Chair’s Report

No report.

University Faculty Senator’s Report

University Faculty Senator W. Gohlman shared with the Executive Committee a resolution passed by the University Faculty Senate (sent in a memo to SUNY Chancellor King):

Resolution on Rational Policy

WHEREAS, the economic and scientific competitiveness of New York State is dependent on an educated citizenry, and

WHEREAS, the quality of that education is linked to appropriate State support, and

WHEREAS, SUNY is committed to providing broad access to quality state supported higher education, and

WHEREAS, there is a clear indication that greater numbers of New York State students will seek a SUNY education, and

WHEREAS, the lack of a long range funding policy makes financial planning difficult for students and their parents, SUNY campuses, and the State of New York, and

WHEREAS, the lack of a long range funding policy threatens excellence in teaching and research and the ability to compete with other universities;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chancellor, working with the University Faculty Senate, governmental bodies, and other appropriate constituencies, develop a long term, rational fiscal policy to include increased state support and address such factors as enrollment and inflation to ensure the quality of public higher education in New York State.

Gohlman said this was passed after much debate at the University Faculty Senate, but thought that it should be adapted for a substitute motion at the College Senate meeting later today. The University Senate’s resolution avoided the word “tuition”, Gohlman explained, because any additional tuition increases would go directly to the State’s general fund and might never return to SUNY campuses. Thus, the resolution calls for a rational fiscal policy instead.

Chancellor King did say that he felt optimistic about the Budget, Gohlman reported. King believed that the currently proposed SUNY Budget would not necessarily be the last word; we might be able to restore some of the cuts. King felt that the Governor was compelled to present a barebones budget initially for political reasons. In the meantime, the Chancellor prefers to work behind the scenes. He has had a long meeting with Senate Speaker Bruno and expects another with Assembly speaker Silver; King is also a close friend of the Governor. Finally, King is interested in acquiring even more private funding for SUNY.

Gohlman also met with his counterparts from the other SUNY comprehensive colleges. The group discussed how the general education requirements imposed by the Board of Trustees has created strain for faculty.

President Dahl asked whether we should even substitute this motion for the current one on the agenda for the afternoon Senate meeting. Gohlman said he would like to do so.

Central Council Report

J. Lieberman announced that the Student Association’s Director of Public Relations had had to resign due to personal problems. Student Court would be holding a  hearing to see if they need a special election or have the power to appoint someone. Lieberman said he had some additional Senatorial changes and would  send information as soon as the positions are filled.

Treasurer’s Report

No report.


Faculty Affairs Committee Report

J. McLean reported that Faculty Affairs would meet in one week to iron out changes for the Sabbatical Review Committee. Lovett said this was a constitutional change that needed to be available in ballot for the March College Senate Meeting.

The Committee would also consider a  proposal to provide information—perhaps short biographies—for Senate Elections, and would cooperate on implementation with the Nominations Committee.

Graduate Affairs Committee Report

D. Metz reported that, just before break, the Committee received eight curriculum change proposals from the School of Education. GAAC is tentatively scheduling a meeting with Dennis Showers this time next week.

Policy Committee Report

No report.

UCC Report

J. Bushnell said UCC had no new business and no meetings scheduled at the moment.

Student Affairs Committee

D. McPherson said his Committee would meet a week from today. The Committee would discuss sexual assaults; possible racial profiling by the Campus Police; and possibly expanding the SAFE car service to a bus system. There were no formal proposals yet.


There was no old business.


The Executive Committee discussed the initial Resolution for a Rational Tuition Policy. The Committee discussed alternatives, noting particularly that the word “rational” has remained  undefined; possibly using the phrase “continuing funding policy”; choosing among alternative “resolved” clauses.

Lovett asked the Committee if it had a first choice among alternative wordings. In the discussion that ensued, Dahl questioned the wisdom of a resolution that might open a long discussion of tax-cutting policy.

McPherson also felt we should follow the University Faculty Senate’s suggestion to leave tuition out of the wording. While Dahl agreed that SUNY needed a rational tuition policy (especially  one that would not allow tuition dollars simply to replace missing tax dollars), such a policy could be a corollary to a rational fiscal policy.

McLean wondered about the meaning of the terms “formula” vs. “policy.” The former, he thought, suggested more constraint. Leary added that the University Faculty Senate’s resolution explicitly calls for State support.

Dahl foresaw problems with the notion of a long-term funding formula. Such a formula could turn into an allocation rather than a funding formula—which could simply mean a way to divvy up a smaller amount of funds. He also asked Gohlman if he saw any disadvantage in substituting the University Faculty Senate’s resolution for one of our own. Gohlman saw no disadvantage.

The President thought the most realistic funding scheme, politically and financially, in present-day America, had to blend tuition and state support. A resolution could not ignore this reality. The best we could ever hope for would be that tuition increases would not replace state support. But he still wished there were a way to retain the word “tuition.”

Lovett explained the history of the resolution at University Faculty Senate. An earlier version had been tabled so that it could be revised. The new version was then sent away for additional revisions. Just previous to this process, there had been a Budget presentation from SUNY Central, and we noted that in addition to tuition money, there is also foundation-type money, grant money, fees, rental income, etc.—and it seemed that listing all of those in a resolution would be quite messy.  Dahl acknowledged it would be dangerous to mention these—no endowment could ever begin to make up for lost State funding.

McLean suggested a specific revision, adding the words “develop long-term rational fiscal policy” to include increases in state support and tuition, and addressing such factors as enrollment, etc. and addressing such factors as enrollment. Lovett said that the University Senate had wanted to leave out increases specifically connected to the word “tuition.”

McLean affirmed that everyone accepted the fact that tuition would increase between now and thirty years in the future, and Dahl agreed. So, McLean suggested including the words “future increases in state support and tuition.”

McPherson recognized that tuition could not be free, but felt resistant to using tuition to solve State fiscal problems. He also wished the Governor would commit to maintaining a public University system rather than cutting a little bit at a time and fantasizing SUNY’s ultimate privatization.

Summarizing for the Committee, Lovett thought the consensus was to adopt the “resolved” portions of the University Faculty Senate’s resolution. The Committee also liked the “whereas” section. McLean noted in particular that the University Senate’s first “whereas” clause directly links SUNY to New York  State’s overall well-being.

McPherson agreed to move at today’s College Senate Meeting that we substitute the University Faculty Senate’s resolution.

General Education Assessment Plan (GEAP)

Associate Provost D. Gordon reported to the Committee on the progress of GEAP. He gave a brief historical background on assessment. Provost Dixon had created a Committee from people who had attended national assessment conferences.

The College Assessment Committee had started with the assessment of majors and then with General Education. In the meantime, the SUNY Provost’s Office had developed an assessment initiative that included both assessment of learning outcomes in majors and in General Education, especially outcomes that the Trustees had written up for the General Education Program. The details were not complete, so we got our own GEAP going. This fell to the jurisdiction of the Core Committees. We now have developed the rubrics for General Education assessment with some of the details in place, though we have not finished.

The SUNY Provost’s  Office set 1 March as a deadline not only to get our plans to them, but also to win campus-level approval. This put us in a tough spot with only one Senate meeting here before the deadline; this was why Gordon would be presenting what we had right now.

Lovett asked Gordon whether, following a first reading today, the College Assessment Committee would be able to provide the Senate with the rubrics by the first meeting in March for second reading? Dahl said this would mean that we could show preliminary approval. Lovett wondered if there would be any groundswell of opposition from the Senate. McPherson predicted resistance to a wholesale assessment plan on such a schedule. Dahl said it was worthwhile to put it through for a first reading, noting great assessment pressure from the Middle States Association and from the State. This was now a “standard of best practice” in current curricular thinking. The deadline was not a great situation, but we would need to do this to keep our accreditation with Middle States.

Leary inquired what was actually due on 1 March. Gordon did not think this was completely clear. Could we approve a general outline and then hash out the details later? That might produce less dissension. Bushnell liked the idea and also suggested that for the next part we come up for a mechanism for amendments through the Core Committees, for instance.

McLean suggested not presenting the finished rubrics right now. Gordon clarified that the rubrics had been developed separately by Core Committees. McPherson agreed that something more generally stated would be more likely to pass now. Gordon thought the current document was a general one. McPherson said people would not pass something just because there was a deadline.

Lovett speculated that, if we were to get the rubrics out by the last part of February and give people more time to look at them, we could postpone the second reading until the April meeting. How, then, McLean asked, would the rubrics go through as a second reading? Lovett suggested the general outline and the rubrics. Leary agreed. Gordon said that, in fact, the rubrics that would be the implementation instruments that would change.


Bushnell wondered if this would move more smoothly through Senate if the background were given up front—explaining, for instance, that this proposal had gone through Core Committees already for widespread faculty input, that it had been required by the Board of Trustees, etc. Lovett noted that this was also part of a Trustee-mandated General Education Program that was already controversial. But Dahl pointed out that these outcomes had been created by a representative group of faculty and administrators and were not the Trustees’ production.

W. Gohlman noted that these outcomes had been developed by the Core Committees and were unlikely to be amended. Leary noted that the assessment methods could be. McLean added that they had all come from the Core Committees.

Dahl observed that this is finally only saying that we have a plan in place, and that this is the direction we will be going in. He thought it unlikely that the Senate would question detailed aspects of the Core Committees’ individual plans.

Lovett affirmed that we would move what was in the printed information here for the first reading. She asked the Committee if it wanted to move the rubrics separately. McLean asked if the rubrics needed Senate approval; Dahl wondered why the rubrics needed such high-level approval.

Gordon explained that the Senate Chair would have to sign off that Faculty Governance had approved the assessment plan. The Committee’s consensus was to ignore the rubrics for the time being. Rubrics could be amended by the Core Committees that developed them. Gordon said that the rubrics would be approved by the Assessment Committee eventually in any case.


Chair Lovett adjourned the meeting at 2.12PM.

Minutes of the College Senate Meeting

5 February 2002


Newton 204

Present: K. Bajdas;  J. Ballard; T. Bazzett; M. Brummell; J. Bushnell; C. Dahl J. DeCeu; G. Dingeldein; B. Dixon; G. Drake; M. Dunn; K. Farrell; C. Faulkner; B. Fearn; C. Filice; J. Garvey; E. Gillin;  W. Gohlman; D. Granger; T. Greenfield; E. Hall; A. Hassid; A. Hatton; D. Hill; T. Hon; H. Howe; M. Jensen;  D. Johnson; J. Kirkwood; A. Kline; C. Leary; J. Lewis; K. Levison; J. Lieberman; J. Liu; J. Lovett;  R. McEwen; J. McLean; D. McPherson; D. Metz; J. Morse; J. Mounts; R. O’Donnell; K. O’Gara; P. Pacheco; N. Paternostro; M. Putman; K. Rank; J. Remy; P. Schacht; A. Sheldon;  R. Spear; M. Stolee; D. Sullivan; L. Taczak; C. Tang; A. Weibel; C. Whalen; E. Whitcomb; C. Wixson; C. Woidat; J. Zook

Guests: S. Bailey; E. Blask; N. Duxbury; S. Frisch; D. Gordon; R. Pretzer.

Call to Order

College Senate Chair Lovett called the meeting to order at 4.05 PM.

Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was adopted unanimously with the following addition:

Senate approval for M. Jensen (School of Education) replacing W. Cook (History) was placed right before Senate Reports.

Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings

The minutes of the College Senate Meeting of 4 December 2001  (College Senate Bulletin 3, pp. 24-30) were approved unanimously with the following correction, noted by UCC Chair J. Bushnell: Under New Courses: add HIST 230 Modern Ireland 1550-Present.

Approval of Senator-at-Large Member Change

Since W. Cook is on sabbatical this semester, the next available person from the ballot that elected him was M. Jensen. This position for Senator-at- Large, Over Six Years, required Senate approval. A motion to do so passed unanimously.

Senate Reports

President’s Report

During the break between semesters, the Governor’s Budget Message was delivered. It contained no real good news. The best way to describe this Budget, President Dahl decided, was “disappointing, but not unexpected.”

The Budget would provide the exact number of dollars that we had last year. While that might sound like a flat budget, it would not be. All Faculty members and CSEA are owed raises due to contract; this additional cost will be $1.3-1.5 million. The only bright spot in the Budget was that it authorized Geneseo to expend money received through fee accounts and tuition money up to the level of money that we would be taking in. In some years, we have not been allowed to spend money that we actually have in our budget.

In addition, the Governor’s Budget would not increase tax dollar support or provide for a tuition increase (though it did not rule out the latter).

The Governor’s Budget also proposed a one-third cut in TAP funding. The proposal would give two-thirds of TAP money owed to each recipient, holding the remaining third in reserve as an incentive to graduate on time. Those who graduate on time would then receive the withheld funds. Dahl said this meant that students would be advancing money to the State of New York to help it through the Budget crisis. The President called this proposal foolish and odious. Geneseo would need to oppose this idea strongly.

Generally, the Governor’s Budget process over the last twenty years has been an elaborate ballet of cuts and restorations in the negotiations with the two branches of the Legislature. We will  ask the Legislature to fund contracted labor expenses and oppose meddling with TAP.

The reality of the State Budget for the coming year, Dahl predicted, would be grim because of the outcome of September 11. New York City lost offices, and New York State lost their taxable income as a result. Nevertheless, Dahl believed it was possible to restore some funding.

Provost’s Report

Provost Dixon reminded the Senate of the call for nominations for Awards for Excellence in Part-Time Teaching, Mentoring, and Advising, plus a new Award for Research and Creative Activity.

Chair’s Report

As a Campus Governance Leader, Chair Lovett attended the University Faculty Senate Plenary Session along with Geneseo’s University Senator Bill Gohlman. Campus Governance Leaders were given a separate meeting room. The University Faculty Senate is the designated representative of SUNY’s Faculty and has close interaction with SUNY Central. In the past, Campus Governance Leaders have not been officially affiliated with or had an official voice in the University Senate. Over the past couple of years, dissatisfaction with this arrangement and increasing need for collaboration with Campus Governance Leaders have necessitated a closer relationship. The Convener of the Campus Governance Leaders now sits on the University Executive Committee, and Campus Governance Leaders are now invited to all three Plenary Sessions. This new relationship may lead to changes in our local governance structure.

Vice-Chair’s Report

T. Bazzett thanked the Excellence Awards Committee. He commended their timely work last semester and said they were a pleasure to work with.

Treasurer’s Report

No report.

University Senator’s Report

W. Gohlman reported on the meeting on 18-19 January in Binghamton. The Plenary Sessions dealt with two main topics:

1. A representative from Systems Administration at SUNY Central and SUNY Chancellor King both spoke about the Budget. King’s presentation was upbeat, and he assured the Senate that the currently proposed Budget would not going to be the final Budget for SUNY. He also said that he liked to work privately with members of the State Senate and Assembly and with his personal friend Governor Pataki rather than in a public confrontation.

2. The University Senate passed a resolution for a rational fiscal policy.

In Gohlman’s meeting with Senators from the other “comprehensive colleges,” discussion centered on unfunded General Education mandates from the SUNY Trustees. There was plenty of dissatisfaction and discussion of how we could possibly even implement them.

The University Senate will meet again in April at Alfred State.

Central Council Report

J. Lieberman reported that recently T. Gates, Director Public Relations, had to resign for personal reasons. This raised the question of whether Central Council would appoint a replacement or whether an election would be required. A Student Court would be having a hearing tonight to evaluate Student Government Constitutional policies.

L. Taczak announced a Student Association service project: donating teddy bears to children’s organizations during February.

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

Chair J. Bushnell moved the following for her Committee:

Second Readings:

Course Deletions:

   ANTH 225 - Ethno-nonverbal Communication (Bulletin 8, 145)

   ANTH 308 - Field Methods in Paleoanthropology (Bulletin 8, 146)

   ANTH 315 - Iroquois Field School (Bulletin 8, 146)

   BIOL 313 - Horticultural Science (Bulletin 8, 146)

   ECON/MGMT 322 - Managerial Economics (Bulletin 8, 146)

   ENGL 334 - American Literature of the Depression Era (Bulletin 8, 146)

   GEOG 360 - M/Asian Field Course: (subtitle) (Bulletin 8, 146)

   GEOG 372 - Physical Environmental Hazards (Bulletin 8, 146)

   HIST 327 - Transforming Russia & China (Bulletin 8, 146)

   INTD 260 - Heritage of Jewish Civilization (Bulletin 8, 146)

   INTD 270 - Topics in History of Science I (Bulletin 8, 146)

   INTD 271 - Topics in History of Science II (Bulletin 8, 146)

   INTD 292 - Race in the Americas (Bulletin 8, 146)

   MGMT 322 - Managerial Economics (Bulletin 8, 146)

   MGMT 353 - Intermediate Statistics (Bulletin 8, 146)

   MGMT 381 - Independent Research in Management I (Bulletin 8, 146)

   PHIL 333 - Artificial Intelligence Problem (Bulletin 8, 146)

   PLSC 312 - Government & Budgetary Priorities (Bulletin 8, 146)

   PLSC 323 - Politics of Revolution (Bulletin 8, 146)

   PSYC 379 - Human Factors & Ergonomics (Bulletin 8, 146)

Graduate Academic Affairs Committee

D. Metz said his Committee would meet next Tuesday to discuss curriculum change proposals from the School of Education.

Student Affairs Committee

D. McPherson said his Committee would meet next week at 4PM.

Faculty Affairs Committee

J. McLean said his Committee would meet next week at 4PM.

Old Business


WHEREAS, access to higher education has long been a foundation of a democratic society; and

WHEREAS, the State of New York has a fiduciary and constitutional responsibility to support public higher education; and

WHEREAS, in the current economic climate citizens need to have the ability to plan long-term for the costs of higher education; and

WHEREAS, the costs of delivering higher education programs increase due to the impact of inflation on fixed costs and due to new program creation;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the College Senate of SUNY Geneseo endorses the establishment of a rational tuition plan (such as one calling for regular tuition increases corresponding to inflation increases but with corresponding increases in State funds for higher education) for the State

University of New York.

D. McPherson proposed a substitute motion from the University Faculty Senate:


WHEREAS, the economic and scientific competitiveness of New York State is dependent on an educated citizenry, and

WHEREAS, the quality of that education is linked to appropriate State support, and

WHEREAS, SUNY is committed to providing broad access to quality state-supported higher education, and

WHEREAS, there is a clear indication that greater numbers of New York State students will seek a SUNY education, and

WHEREAS, the lack of a long range funding policy makes financial planning difficult for students and their parents, SUNY campuses, and the State of New York, and

WHEREAS, the lack of a long range funding policy threatens excellence in teaching and research and the ability to compete with other universities;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chancellor, working with the University Faculty Senate, governmental bodies, and other appropriate constituencies, develop a long term, rational fiscal policy to include increased state support and address such factors as enrollment and inflation to ensure the

quality of public higher education in New York State.

This motion was seconded.

C. Leary (Mathematics) asked McPherson to state a reason for the substitution.

McPherson explained that the substitute represents a broader range of opinion from SUNY campuses. There are advantages in the substitution because it states what we want, which is support from the State.

The substitution passed unanimously.

The Senate now considered adoption of the substitute resolution.

Vice-President for Administration Levison said it might be appropriate to remove the reference to the University Faculty Senate, leaving in governmental bodies and appropriate constituencies. This was moved and seconded.

In the ensuing discussion of the motion, Jane Morse inquired about the purpose of the amendment. Levison said that, since the resolution was by this College Senate, and it did not seem pertinent to mention the University Senate. Morse replied that she liked keeping faculty in the loop; perhaps we should mention faculty at the state universities.

Greenfield opposed the rewording: leaving out that phrase, it appears to leave the appropriate constituency to the discretion of the Chancellor; past history suggests that this would not necessarily involve any faculty bodies.

With only one vote in favor, the motion to delete did not pass.

In further discussion on the resolution, M. Brummell (Student Senator) asked for elaboration on what the resolution was really saying. Gohlman responded that the University Faculty Senate had spent parts of two days debating this. The University Senate did not want to be too specific—it wanted to say fiscal policy, not tuition policy, because it did not want to tell the Chancellor or Governor to rely on tuition. But the University Senate wanted a rational fiscal policy so that SUNY would not have to jerk along from one year to the next without being able to predict what it would be getting; rather, SUNY needed a long–range plan.

Brummell disagreed with the resolution, saying it left interpretation wide open. If we knew what we wanted the Chancellor or Governor to do, why not tell them? Or didn't we know? Brummell recalled the old saying about assumptions.

The Resolution passed with one opposed. Chair Lovett said this would be printed up and sent to the recipients with a Cover Letter.


Associate Provost D. Gordon reported on the College’s Assessment plans as mandated by SUNY. Geneseo decided to deal with assessment of majors first, then General Education.

About a year ago, the SUNY Provost’s Office told us to have the assessment plan for majors and for General Education by 31 January 2002. While the College had already been working on this, it was not quite ready with General Education. The College had been trying to accomplish the task as quickly as it could while still doing a good job.

The deadline was extended to 1 March; we will have until then to submit the report to the SUNY Provost. The Provost also wanted this proposal approved through College Governance before we sent it; today is the only Senate meeting before 1 March.

Gordon said that the report before the Senate today was what we would have done anyway; we went to Core Committees and asked them for assessment outcome plans to put in this report. Gordon emphasized that this plan is not one generated by the College’s Assessment Planning Committee but by Core Committees. The outcomes listed in the report are the minimum set required by SUNY Central.

If the College Senate approved the plan today, it could send this as approved for a first reading. We would then have a second reading in April.

Lovett said that Senate Executive Committee moved to present this to Senate today with the understanding that the assessment rubrics would be published before the second reading in March or April. She noted that the plan had been printed in Bulletin 11.

Associate Dean S. Bailey clarified that the outcomes appearing in the Bulletin were SUNY-wide outcomes, not Geneseo outcomes.

J. Ballard (Psychology) thought it interesting that the SUNY Provost asks us to vote on this without asking us to vote on General Education requirements.

K. Levison thought it important that the Senate vote on this to reinforce that we do vote on matters of curricular importance.

J. McLean asked where we would find out who does the actual tallying of assessments and generating of results? D. Gordon said that Core Committees would decide this. The INTD 105 Committee had already started doing this and shares the labor.

The proposal passed unanimously on the first reading.


The Senate moved to adjourn at 4.48 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary

Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes of February 12, 2001

Present: J. McLean (Chair), J. Ballard, T. Book, E. Hall, R. Hartman, M. Jensen, J. Lewis, S. McKenna, N. Paternostro, M. Putman, P. Schacht, C. Woidat, D. Meisel (guest).

McLean announced that a new student senator will replace T. Williams.

Agenda for the meeting was continued discussion of the proposal to amend portions of the requirements for the Committee on Professional Leave Review (CPLR). Specifically, the proposed changes include: 1) Increasing the term of service for each member from 2 years to 3 years; 2) Limiting eligibility for membership to ensure that all or part of the committee includes individuals who previously received sabbatical leaves.

D. Meisel provided a historical overview of the origins, functions, and procedures of previous committees. He noted that prior to the 1970s, no sabbatical application procedures were used, and granting leaves was at the discretion of the administration. The committee was instituted to provide faculty input and advocacy for applicants. Department approval for sabbatical applications was required, largely because the courses typically taght by a faculty member were covered, as overloads, by the remaining department faculty.  Evolution of committee procedures led to current practices, including the non-publication of minutes, preparation of an annual report to the college, and ranking of proposals. Sabbatical recipients are required to submit a report at the end of the leave period, with the report going into the individual’s personnel file. Meisel noted that sabbaticals are granted and funded at the discretion of the local administration (in contrast to Title F leaves, which are financed by Albany).

FAC members reviewed the current procedures involved in determining the membership of the CPLR. Term length is two years, and members are limited to two consecutive terms. Of the six members, one serves from each of six areas (Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Fine Arts, Professional Studies, and Education). Faculty who are in the process of applying for a leave must step off the CPLR.

The discussion of the proposed changes included the following points and questions:

a.   How long should each term last? An additional year for each member could allow more continuity, as well as greater experience of each member in using the published criteria for evaluating proposals. However, longer terms might reduce the number of faculty who are willing to serve. With overlapping terms, longer terms would reduce the number of new members elected in any given year.

b.   Should membership on the CPLR be limited on the basis of prior receipt of sabbatical leaves? One suggestion was to require that a minimum of half the committee should consist of prior recipients. One question was whether faculty who previously had been turned down for leaves should serve on the committee. Meisel noted that many proposals are recommended, but not funded in the year of application. These proposals typically receive priority in the following year. Pragmatic issues were noted in the logistics of limiting membership to include at least 3 prior recipients. For example, how and at what point in the election procedure should potential members be screened for prior leave status? One suggestion was to send a list of prior sabbatical recipients to the departments during the nomination process (much like the current procedures for election to the Personnel Committee). The list could be provided by the Provost’s office. A constitutional amendment would be required to change the election procedures.

A second option on limiting membership was to require prior receipt of sabbaticals for all CPLR members. However, it might be difficult to fill the committee.


c.   Should untenured faculty serve on the CPLR? One concern was that a three-year term might be too long for faculty who need to focus on other standards for continuing appointment and promotion. Conflicts of interest might also arise, in that untenured faculty may be put in the position of evaluating proposals of tenured faculty, who may also be involved in evaluating the untenured member. Untenured faculty might also be encouraged to take the chairship of the committee, which would result in a greater commitment of time. However, the chairship could be limited to tenured faculty. Some benefit to the untenured members might include an increase in understanding of the procedures and appreciation of the qualities of good proposals. However, such guidance could be provided elsewhere, perhaps through mentoring. It was noted that each of these concerns may be unfounded, given that untenured faculty can always decline to serve on the committee.

After discussion of these issues, the FAC tentatively agreed to the following. Terms will increase to a length of three years. Two new members will be elected each year. The chair will be limited to someone who has previously been granted a sabbatical leave. A minimum of three CPLR members will be prior recipients of sabbaticals. Current applicants or faculty with potential conflicts of interest will step off the committee. Replacements on the committee will be taken from the next highest vote-getters in the original election.

J. McLean will prepare a draft revision of the current constitutional section on the CPLR. FAC members will review the draft for discussion at the next meeting, to be held on Tuesday, February 26.

Respectfully submitted,

J. Ballard

Graduate Aacademic Affairs Committee

Minutes February 12, 2002

Present: B. Fearn, J. Kirkwood, D. Metz (Chair), Ray Spear, Guests: D. Showers, M. Jensen

GAAC met to discuss eight separate curricular changes submitted by the School of Education       ECEd 541, Child Development and Assessment in Early Education (revision)

      ECEd 542, Advanced Curriculum Development (revision)

      ECEd 543, Policy Issues and Programs in Early Education (revision)

      ECEd 544, Family Relations in Early Education (revision)

      ECEd 545, Action Research Seminar in Early Education (new course)

      ECEd 546, Language and Literacy Across the Early Childhood Curriculum (new course)

      ECEd 547, Leadership/Inquiry Internship in Early Childhood (new course) and

      EDUC 5--, The Writing Process: Pre K-8 (revision).

We also discussed a proposed program change (M.S. in Education: Early Childhood Education). Dennis Showers and Mary Jensen provided a brief explanation of the above changes with respect to some of the state’s new requirements. Following a brief discussion, GAAC members voted unanimously to approve all program changes. Two GAAC members not present at the meting expressed support of the proposals via e-mail to the chair.


Dale E. Metz