College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin 22
16 March 2001
  

 

  Upcoming Meetings


 

 

Date

 

Room

Time

27 March 

UCC

South 209

4:00 p.m.

27 March

SAC

South 110

4:00 p.m.


 

__________________________________________________________________

Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: leary@geneseo.edu Phone: 245-5383
__________________________________________________________________

Contents

Comments from the Chair
Upcoming Elections
Minutes
All College Meeting--13 March 2001 
College Senate--13 March 2001
Sample Ballots
Senate Officers
Senator at Large, Six Years Service and Under (3 to be elected)
Senator at Large, Over Six Years Service (7 to be elected)
Professional Leave Review Committee
General Education Committee
Amendments to the Constitution
School of Education Curriculum Proposals, Volume 2 

INTD 302 (Foreign Language)—Major Course Revision 313

EDUC 303—New Course 323

Secondary Social Studies—Program Revision (Related Requirements) 328

SPED 205—Major Course Revision 335

INTD 302 (Social Studies)—Major Course Revision 341

INTD 301 (Social Studies)—Major Course Revision 346

EDUC 204—Major Course Revision 350

EDUC 215—New Course 356

INTD 302 (Chemistry)—Major Course Revision 363

INTD 302 (Biology)—Major Course Revision 369

INTD 302 (Physics)—Major Course Revision 376

INTD 302 (Earth Science)—Major Course Revision 382

 


Comments from the Chair

Upcoming Elections

Sample ballots for the Spring Elections are found in this isssue of the Bulletin. Please read the ballots over carefully and let me know if you find any misprints. If you are on a ballot and would like your name listed differently, please let me know that as well.

In response to a suggestion at the All College Meeting of 13 March, I have looked through the Constitution trying to make sure that all Departments and Schools are referred to by their current name. These changes are also listed in this issue of the Bulletin.

Voting in the Spring Election will take place between April 6 and April 13.


Minutes

All College Meeting--13 March 2001

Call to Order. C.Leary called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m.

Adoption of the Agenda. The agenda was unanimously adopted.

Report from the Nominations Committee (Bulletin, p. 254). C.Leary thanked the Nominations Committee for working very hard to produce a ballot of candidates for Senate Offices and Senators at Large. He said that a list of names for the Professional Leave Review Committee would be published this week.

Nominations from the Floor for Senate Offices and Senator at Large. M.Lima said that Joaquin Gomez had not been listed because his name was not submitted to the Nominations Commitee on time, but that he was willing to run for Senator at Large (six years and over).

Presentation of Proposed Amendments to the Constitution and By-Laws of the Faculty. The proposed amendments were accepted. C.Leary noted that Communicative Disorders was incorrectly identified by its old name of Speech Pathology. J.Lovett suggested that the change be made in all references to this department in the Constitution.

Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned by C.Leary at 4:11 p.m.

 

College Senate--13 March 2001

Attendance: H.Almubaid, S.Bailey, J.Ballard, T.Bazzett, B.Briggs, J.Bushnell, P.Case, M.-M. Chang, E.Cleeton, J.Curran, C.Dahl, B.Dixon, C.Faulkner, T.Feeley, J.Ferrell, C.Filice, J.Fowler Morse, E.Gilling, T.Greenfield, A.Gu, K.Hahn, E.Hall, A.Happ, G.Harvigsen, A.Hatton, D.Hill, T.-K.Hon, H.Hoops, H.Howe, T.Hurlburt, K.Jones, B.Joshi, E.Kallin, S.Kirsh, J.Koch, R.LaFountain, S.Landes, C.Leary, J.Lerch, K.Levison, M.Lima, J.L.Liu, J.Lovett, A.Martucci, R.McEwen, S.McKenna, J.McLean, S.Muench, K.Nichols, O.Nicodemi, M.Oberg, P.Pacheco, N.Paternostro, W.Pogozelski, E.Putman, S.Salmon, P.Schacht, N.Schiavetti, M.E.Schmidt, A.Snyder, L.Stellrecht, M.Stolee, L.Taczak, C.Truglia, E.Wallace, C.Wixson, J.Wrubel.

Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by C.Leary at 4:12 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda. The agenda was unanimously adopted.

Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting (Bulletin p. 231-236). The minutes were unanimously approved.

Senate Reports

Chair's Report.

C.Leary noted that the last Bulletin contained the report from the Ad-hoc Sabbatical Leave Committee and that the data were worth looking at. He thanked Kurt Cylke and the members of the committee for their work in preparing the report. He then announced that nominations for the Richard Roark Award, the only student award that the Senate administers, should be submitted to him.

President's Report.

President Dahl reported that none of the 22 people scheduled to lobby on SUNY Day had been able to attend, due to inclement weather in Albany. However, he did tell the Senate what needs to happen regarding the SUNY budget and how members could help. He said that the SUNY budget picture is "far from bleak" and that there have been two positive developments. The executive budget provides $55 million to cover all contracted salary increases. However, President Dahl commented that any jubilation over that figure is a "sorry commentary on what we've come to expect" since the system has been shortchanged for the past ten years. The governor's budget includes an excellent start on solving what is called the "hospital problem." Previously the teaching hospitals of the SUNY system have been required to contribute to the SUNY budget. Since these hospitals, like most hospitals, have been losing money recently, the situation has been problematic. The new budget would eliminate this obligation and would make up the difference with state tax dollars. President Dahl is hopeful that legislators will also support other additions to the SUNY budget as well that have been advocated by the trustees and the chancellor. One of these is $40 million for the Academic Quality Initiative, which in Geneseo's case would address salary problems and provide for new faculty lines in the college's endeavor to lower the student-faculty ratio. This additional $900,000 to $1.2 million Geneseo would receive would assist the college in its goals and would help the system as a whole. Communication with legislators was also urged for restoration of funding for programs such as EOP and additional funding for utility cost overruns. The increase in fuel costs at Geneseo, for example, estimated at $500,000 to $800,000, would wipe out operating reserves that the college had been planning to allocate through the annual budget processes. The system is requesting an additional $19 million to deal with these costs. President Dahl also recommended that we encourage legislators to oppose a proposed cap on student fees. While he "doesn't particularly like student fees", the President noted that technology, athletics programs, and the health center are funded or partially funded through these fees. Since the governor has said that tuition will not be increased, campuses need these fees and the cap is not in the best interest of the students. President Dahl said that despite the gyrations of the stock market, this appears to be a generally good budget year in Albany, and given the $800 million to $1.8 billion added by the ligislature to the executive budget each yer in the past several years for K-12 programs, a $40 to $80 million increase for public higher education is both modest and appropriate. If anyone is interested in communicating with legislators about these matters, he/she is urged to do so. President Dahl said that he is happy to make available the information that had been compiled for SUNY Day.

President Dahl then thanked everyone who had sat on Middle States committees or had attended the forums to discuss draft chapters of the self-study. Dean Greenfield and Professor David Geiger, co-chairs of the self-study, are working on second drafts of the final document. The President announced that the visiting team will be headed by Chancellor Samuel Schuman of the University of Minnesota at Morris, former chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Asheville, an individual who has experience with two nationally known public liberal arts colleges like Geneseo. The visit is planned for Oct 21-Oct 24.

The President thanked the Geneseo Commission on Diversity and Community for its work and for its survey on campus climate. He anticipates that the survey will be a helpful way to assess campus atmosphere.

Lastly, the President encouraged nominations for the PATH Awards, given to faculty and staff on campus who have helped advance diversity. The nominations are due on Thursday and the chair of the Award Committee is Debbie Hill.

Provost's Report.

Provost Dixon announced that the Planning process is moving along; the working groups meeting for this purpose are nearly finished. The next step will be for the Strategic Planning Group to take the reports of the various subgroups and come up with a final draft of Strategic Objectives related to the Six Goals of the College. This task should be completed shortly, giving people time to respond before the end of the semester.

In anticipation of the laptop presentation to follow the end of the meeting, the Provost gave some background on the history of the program. She said that in the spring of 1999 a task force called the Computer Technology Advisory Group had been appointed and charged with looking at all technology issues from all four divisions. At the end of the first year, the task force made a series of recommendations, one of which was to appoint a subcommittee to look into laptop programs.

Treasurer's Report. No report.

Vice-Chair's Report. No report.

University Faculty Senator's Report. No report.

Central Council Report. No report.

Reports of the Standing Committees

Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review Committee

Second Reading: (Passed First Reading at the Senate Meeting of 20 February 2001).

E.Gillin called for second reading of a motion to delete the following item from the list of Requirements for Baccalaureate Degree Programs in the Geneseo Undergraduate Bulletin (Undergraduate Bulletin, p. 101):

  1.  
    1. Earn a minimum of 45 semester hours outside the general academic area of fine arts, humanities, natural sciences, or social sciences in which they are majoring. These academic areas are defined below. (Forty-two semester hours outside the general academic area are required for students graduating with two majors in the same academic area.)

S.Kirsh objected to the motion, saying that it moves the college away from its liberal arts designation. He said that the core courses would only guarantee that a student had 20-22 hours outside the major area. The motion passed with a few nays.

Second Reading: (Passed First Reading at the Senate Meeting of 20 February 2001). A motion was made for second reading of a motion from the Dean's office to delete the following paragraph from the Repeat Course Policy in the Geneseo Undergraduate Bulletin (Undergraduate Bulletin, p. 90).

Seniors who receive a D or E in their final semester may petition the instructor(s) and the Dean of the College to retake the final examination. Petitions must be submitted in writing within ten days after the student receives his or her final grades or two weeks after final grades are mailed from the College, whichever comes first. Petitions are approved or denied by the Dean in consultation with the course instructor(s).

The motion passed unanimously.

Second Reading: (Passed First Reading at the Senate Meeting of 20 February 2001).

A motion was made for second reading of three proposals made in response to the learning outcomes in U.S. history set forth by the SUNY Board of Trustees.

  1.  
    1. That Geneseo students shall fulfill the SUNY directives by taking one three-credit course from a published list of appropriate courses;

    2. That at least some courses on this list shall also meet other core or graduation requirements.

    3. That a U.S. History Committee be established with power to review, approve, and forward to the Undergraduate Committee on Curriculum courses submitted by academic departments for inclusion on the published list.

O.Nicodemi asked for clarification on exactly what was being voted for, wondering whether it was a mechanism to enact a SUNY graduation requirement or a Geneseo history requirement. E.Gillin responded that the intention of the motion was explicitly to not set the history requirement as a Geneseo requirement. O.Nicodemi suggested that the requirement therefore be consistently labeled as a SUNY graduation requirement. C.Leary said that the Minutes would reflect this working. The motion passed unanimously.

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

T.Bazzett intoduced the following motions for Second Reading. (All Passed First Reading at the Senate Meeting of 20 February 2001).

New Course

English 215 Understanding Poetry (Bulletin p. 194)

New Course

History 155 Politics and Power in the United States (Bulletin, p. 200)

History 264 Immigration in U.S. History (Bulletin p. 206)

History 382 Modern China (Bulletin p. 209)

Minor Course Revision

History 161 Issues in American History I (Bulletin p. 204)

History 162 Issues in American History II (Bulletin p. 204)

History 260 Women in United States History (Bulletin p. 205)

First Reading

Minor Course Revision

Honors 393 Honors Thesis (Bulletin p. 257)

Course Deletions

Honors 201 Honors Colloquium

Honors 310 Critical Exposition (Bulletin p. 258)

Minor Course Revisions

Philosophy 397 Senior Seminar: Major Problems

Philosophy 398 Senior Seminar: Major Philosphers (Bulletin p. 259)

Program Revision

B.A. in Philosophy (Bulletin p. 260)

International Relations (Bulletin p. 264)

U.S. History SUNY Requirement Course Listing (Bulletin p. 264)

All of the motions passed unanimously.

Faculty Affairs Committee

M.Lima brought the following resolution to the Senate for its consideration. She explained the history of the resolution, saying that it resulted from two charges that had been given to the Faculty Affairs Committee. (The charges can be found in last year's Bulletin, pp. 939-944).

A Resolution of the College Senate of the State University of New York College at Geneseo

Whereas, SUNY Geneseo's Planning Goal #2 is to "recruit, support, and foster the development of a diverse community of outstanding students, faculty, and staff" and

Whereas, the development and retention of outstanding faculty are among the chief means by which the College can realize its stated values of academic excellence, innovation, diversity, and tradition; and

Whereas, the College can best develop and retain outstanding faculty when the processes of evaluation and development form an organized, integrated, and comprehensive system;

Resolved, That the College Senate ask the President to appoint a task force (1) to study the existing processes of faculty evaluation and development and (2) to design an organized, integrated, and comprehensive system of faculty evaluation and development.

Resolved, That the Senate ask the President to compose the task force in a way that insures adequate representation of the relevant constituencies of the College involved in faculty evaluation and development, including faculty of various departments, programs, and ranks, and the student body.

Resolved, That to assist the task force in its work, the Senate recommend the hiring of a professional consultant who will be remunerated by the College.

Resolved, That the Senate ask the President to incorporate, in his charge to the task force, and obligation to report to the Faculty Affairs Committee of the College Senate twice a year and at the expiration of its appointment.

The resolution was approved unanimously.

Student Affairs Committee. No report.

Graduate Affairs Committee. No report.

Presentation on the Laptop Initiative.

Associate Provost Padalino spoke to the Senate about a proposal for a laptop computer initiative program. He began by showing an article from the previous day's Wall Street Journal reporting that over 100 college or university campuses had implemented "wireless" computer systems combined with laptop or notebook computers.

Geneseo wishes to begin studying the advantages of such program by implementing a voluntary wireless notebook program next fall. The purpose is to investigate and assess features of the program. Students will be able to purchase a laptop computer at a greatly discounted rate and use it most places on campus without cords and cables. It will have a wireless card and will be loaded with standard licensed software designed for universal compatibility. Transmitter receivers (access points) on campus will communicate with the computer and will themselves be plugged into wires and the Internet. The campus will be responsible for maintenance.

The administration would spend the next year collecting data about hardware and software use, pedagogy use, repair and vendor service, and would provide forums for faculty and students to discuss uses and what improvements would be needed.

S.Padalino noted that Wake Forest was using its laptop program as a recruiting tool, citing the school's Top Ten Reasons for Attending Wake Forest, one of which was technology: "We'll put a ThinkPad in your hands".

Associate Provost Padalino then cited data on current student computer ownership. Currently 91-92% of students have computers in their dorm rooms. Of these, 94% are PCs and 6% are Apple platforms. He noted that this distribution mirrors the market share (5.1% Apple). Of the students polled in two separate surveys, 19-23% of the students who own computers have laptops. Eighty percent of the students who own computers bought them after being accepted at Geneseo.

S.Padalino then cited data from a laptop program initiated by Ed Rivenburgh, Director of Libraries. A program was begun 1.5 years ago in which four laptop computers were made available to be signed out. The demand was sufficient that the number was increased to 19 laptops. These computers were signed out 1297 times during February 2001 alone. Students signed them out whether or not desktop machines were available, seeming to prefer them over desktop units. The library program will increase to 50 notebook computers next year.

S.Kirsh asked if these computers were being used for schoolwork or for things such as downloading MP3 files. S.Padalino said that there was a broad spectrum of uses and that the computers could only be checked out for three hours at a time. The program has also been extended to faculty for longer periods of time.

S.Padalino also noted that a wireless program has an advantage in being significantly less expensive (1/10 the price of wire hookup) but a disadvantage in being 1/10 the speed. However, he noted that this number is increasing daily and that technology is not likely to be a limiting factor. S.Chichester, Director of Computing and Information Technology, said that she agreed with this statement. S.Padalino also noted the advantage of wireless transmission in buildings with asbestos problems. J.McLean asked if there was a limit to how many users each transmitter could handle. S.Chichester replied in the affirmative and noted that performance degrades as more people access the transmitter. S.Padalino said that high-use areas will be identified and will receive a higher density of transmitters. J.McLean asked how the limit would relate to class size. S.Chichester replied that the limit was close to 100. S.Padalino said that by installing more transmitters, access could be increased.

Dr. Padalino then pointed out the advantage of students having their own machines in which they can store information. He added that a campus laptop program would also include a spare parts inventory and a loaner program for parts that need to be sent out for repair or replacement. He addressed the issue of damage and theft by saying that other schools include inexpensive insurance plans of approximately $4-$8/month. J.Haley, Systems Manager for Administration and Finance, said that antitheft devices such as metallic adhesive decals are available. These decals destroy the screen when pried off, and leave an impression that identifies the computer as stolen. The computers can also have bar codes to track ownership. SUNY Morrisville has recovered several stolen computers this way.

S. Padalino then addressed the issue of funding modes for laptop computers. Scholarships could be made available, and a loaner program could be implemented, as well as leases and lease-to-buy programs. If a mandatory laptop program were initiated, then students could purchase a computer with financial aid. He noted that ~3% of the freshmen don't have computers for financial reasons. With the ability to use financial aid and federal funding resources, students who formerly could not afford computers would be able to.

Someone asked when wireless cards would be made available for people who currently own laptops. S.Padalino said to keep in touch with him for that information. P.Pacheco asked if the program would push the campus away from Apple computer use. S.Padalino replied that the vendors contacted included Apple (as well as Compaq, Gateway, Dell, and IBM). He did say that so far, IBM had presented a far superior program and was "way ahead" in addressing student needs, with web sites for faculty, construction of a web "Think Pad University" etc. He said that many faculty who use Apple computers do so because of the graphics use, but that PCs are improving in their graphics capabilities.

J.Haley said that the campus has been moving toward fewer labs but "with more in them." Graphics-intensive labs have been limited in the number of licenses that the campus has been able to purchase. With the laptop program, Geneseo would be able to purchase more licenses and hardware that would support graphics applications. J.Lovett noted that while Macs are capable of reading PC files, PCs are "not as cross-platform." She asked if people who already owned Mac-based programs would still be able to use them. S.Chichester replied that it is a problem but that the world is becoming a "PC world." Many of the CDs that are issued with textbooks now, for example, are for PCs only. In addition, much of the software being written is PC-based; version for Macs are sometimes made available later than the PC versions.

J.L.Liu asked if the program would be implemented with or without Senate approval. S.Padalino stressed that the proposed program is voluntary. Provost Dixon said that there is no intention to bypass Senate, but that a voluntary program does not need Senate approval. The administration does not currently know if there will be a mandatory program, but if so, appropriate measures will be taken. J.L.Liu said that even a voluntary program was an issue of concern. She feared that it would create peer pressure and could involve implicit coercion from administrators or professors. She said that the fact that many colleges are instituting such a program is not a good argument in itself. For any example that supports the program, there can be ten counterexamples. She said that a "laptop revolution" going on in the country does not equate with students being made to

own identical laptops or having laptop computers of a brand that the college endorses. S.Padalino replied that students can use any brand of laptop that they wish. The campus program would be designed for convenience, high-volume purchase for a better price for students, compatibility, and support. He reported that at Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute (currently a non-wireless campus), students obtain a $4500 notebook computer for $2500.

M.Stolee asked how many faculty groups S.Padalino had addressed thus far. He replied that he had addressed a few departments and several divisions (Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and the Student Association), is lined up for several more discussions and pointed out that the issue would be discussed at the next day's Brown Bag Luncheon.

E.Cleeton asked if the administration decides the make the program mandatory, if it would be presented to the Senate in the form of a proposal. Provost Dixon said yes, if the Constitution requires it.

J.Allen requested that the Senate consider the similarities between this initiative and the distance learning proposal that the Senate voted on a few years earlier. He also said that he was waiting to be convinced of the pedagogical value of the program rather than it being a cost measure or a way to get students to pay for computers. S.Padalino agreed that discussions as to pedagogical value need to take place. He said he could "reel off 45 minutes' worth of advantages" but that this would be what forums would be for. J.Allen then asked if there were not similarities between this program and the distance learning proposal of past years. President Dahl said that he was Interim President at the time and said that the difference was that the campus was participating in a grant that would provide a distance learning laboratory. He said that he could understand peoples' concerns and that the situations were "somewhat similar but significantly different." He said that what the campus is looking at is a possible pilot as to what might be done in terms of equipment for possible uses in the future - to see what the "nature of the beast" is without committing. If the campus moves to a requirement, then the Senate needs to provide input and to be consulted before the move to the next stage. He said that "it makes good sense to proceed that way."

E.Kallin said that he had attended the presentation to the Central Council and was noticing a language change from emphasis on a 5-year completely mandatory implementation program to a "voluntary" program. He asked if the change was intentional and what the reasoning was. S.Padalino replied that he had used the work "proposal" in his Central Council presentation many times and that the President and Cabinet have only decided to go as far as a one-year study.

J.Morse asked if there would be an initiative to provide faculty with laptops. S.Padalino said that the Business and Math departments will begin to use roll-around carts of laptop computers.

J.L.Liu suggested that the program focus more on the lease or loan program, saying that the College should not promote a brand, since students will trust the College's endorsement. She asked what would happen to the computers when the students graduate. S.Padalino replied that after four years, laptops will not be worth much. Computers are not investments. Also, he said that the issue of choosing a vendor is not to endorse a brand but to find the best deal that can be cut for the students. The vendor could change after a few years. He said, "We are supporting a program, not a laptop."

A.Martini asked how the administration will determine how laptop computers would be used in a mandatory program, since in a voluntary program most students wouldn't have them. Steve said that laptops will be supplied for use in a classroom, using the roll around cart concept. As to use, he said that while students do use their computers for games and email, the studies also show that they use them for work. A.Martini then said that she thought the program would be difficult to implement, wondering how the 95% who already own computers would be affected. Steve said that survey had shown that 80% of the students who brought computers to campus purchased them after admission to Geneseo. With the information about the campus program in front of the students, students will likely opt to go with the campus program. He expects a high degree of voluntary participation based on the price and the support offered. Even if the computers are not used in the classroom, students stand to benefit from the program as a service for them.

C.Leary noted that there will be additional discussions on this issue. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Wendy Pogozelski

Senate Secretary