|Bulletin 20 |
Pages 605 - 647
3 March 2000
|606||Richard Roark Award|
|Message from Chair|
|606||Regular Senate meeting for March 7 cancelled|
|607||All College Meeting March 7|
|607-609||Report by the Committee on Nominations|
|609-610||Proposed Constitutional Amendment on FPC Elections|
|611-617||College Senate (22 February)|
|618-624||Executive Committee (24 February)|
|624-626||Policy Committee (29 February)|
|627-647||UCC (15 February)|
All College Meeting March 7 at 4:00 pm
No regular Senate meeting to follow
Shortly after Richard Roark's untimely death in 1970, a group of his friends established an award to honor his memory. Richard's friends described him this way: "Richard was a special kind of human being who valued the humane and ethical above all else. He was a scholar and intellectual who treasured learning and especially books with which, he thought, every person could access the accumulated knowledge of all previous civilizations."
The Richard Roark Award is given to a graduating senior whose scholarship and community service exemplify the qualities that were so important to Richard. The recipient is given a stipend to purchase books, and the recipient's name will be inscribed on a plaque displayed in the MacVittie College Union. Please submit nominations by April 17 to Becky Glass, Dept. of Sociology, Sturges 122C.
MESSAGE FROM CHAIR
The All College Meeting will be held March 7 to
Next Senate Meeting
4:00 pm, Newton 204
All College Senate Meeting
7 March 2000
4:00 pm, Newton 204
Call to Order
Adoption of Agenda
Report of the Committee on Nominations (pp.607-609)
Nominations from the Floor for Senate Positions
Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the Facultyof SUNY-Geneseo (pp. 609-610)
Announcements by Senate Chair
Blake Faculty and Staff LoungeAcademic Freedom Conference
Candidates for Senate Offices
|Vice Chair||Jan Lovett, Biology|
|Secretary||Carol Faulkner, History|
|Wendy Pogozelski, Chemistry|
|Treasurer||Jane Fowler Morse, Education|
|Anne-Marie Reynolds, SOPA|
Candidates for Senators at Large
Over 6 years (vote for six)
Joanie Ballard, Psychology
Judy Bushnell, Libraries
Ken Cooper, English
Carlo Filice, Philosophy
Ed Gillin, English
Harold Hoops, Biology
James Kirkwood, SOPA
Tony Macula, Math
Barbara Mason, SOPA
Nan Pollot, Libraries
Elias Savellos, Philosophy
Meg Stolee, History
Steve Stubblefield, SOPA
Michael Teres, Art
6 years and under (vote for three)
Terence Bazzett, Psychology
Lynette Bosch, Art
Elaine Cleeton, Sociology
Elizabeth Hall, Education
Greg Hartvigsen, Biology
Harry Howe, Business
Savi Iyer, Physics and Astronomy
Rose McEwen, Foreign Languages
Michael Oberg, History
Linda Steet, Education
Candidates for the General Education Committee
Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Science
Phil Boger, Geological Sciences
Dave Geiger, Chemistry
Olympia Nicodemi, Math
Wendy Pogozelski, Chemistry
Harry Howe, Business
Candidates for Professional Leave Review Committee
Ken Kallio, Psychology
Pat Murphy, Sociology
Laura Doan, English
Jeeloo Liu, Philosophy
Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Science
Bob Beason, Biology
Article III: Standing Committees of the Faculty
Section 3: Committee on Faculty Personnel
[add] 7. The Nominations Committee shall ensure that the mandatory number of Full Professors actually have been elected to membership.
b. Selection of Committee Members
The process of nominations and selection will be decided by the Committee on Nominations, in consultation with the College Senate Chair, and published in the College Senate Bulletin.
1. In the Spring prior to an election, the Nominations Committee shall determine and announce in the College Senate Bulletin, (1) the number of Faculty Personnel Committee members to be elected and (2) the mandatory number of Full Professors to be elected in a given year.
In the Spring prior to an election, the Nominations Committee shall create a list from records housed in the Provost's Office of those Associate and Full Professors who are eligible for election (i.e., omitting Department Chairs and individuals from Departments with continuing Faculty Personnel Committee members).
Prior to the end of Spring semester, the Nominations Committee shall send a letter to all eligible individuals asking them to indicate a willingness or unwillingness to serve. Those not wishing to serve will be responsible for asking to have their names removed.
2. During the first week of Fall semester, the Chair of the Nominations Committee shall present a list of responses from the Spring letter to the Nominations Committee.
Members of the Nominations Committee shall immediately call all eligible individuals who failed to respond to the Spring letter of inquiry to ascertain their willingness to accept nomination to the Faculty Personnel Committee.
3. By the middle of the second week of Fall semester, the Nominations Committee shall construct a list of eligible persons willing to serve and shall distribute that list to all faculty and librarians for final revision.
By the third Monday in September, the final list shall be forwarded to all Department Chairs with a charge to departments that they nominate no more than four persons from the list, and no more than one from their respective Departments.
Two Fridays prior to the October All-College meeting will serve as the deadline for Departments to return their nominees to the Chair of the Nominations Committee.
The Nominations Committee shall call all Department Chairs who fail to submit nominations by the deadline.
4. The Nominations Committee shall compile the nominations from Departments and create the slate of nominees for presentation to the Chair of Senate by the Wednesday prior to the October All-College meeting, for inclusion in the Senate Bulletin.
The slate shall include at least triple the number of positions to be filled. (Additional nominees will be included in the case of tie votes emerging from Department nominations).
The slate shall include at least double the mandatory number of Full Professors to be elected.
It does not require many words to speak the truth. - Chief Joseph
Present: Bailey, Ballard, Bandoni, Bazzett, Bonfiglio, Bosch, S., Brennan, Broikou, , Bushnell, Cleeton, Crosby, Cylke, Farian, Feeley, Filice, Fletcher, Freeman, Gillin, Glass, Gohlman, Hartvigsen, Hon, Howe, Iyer, Jones, Joshi, Kirkwood, Kirsh, Landes, Leary, Levison, Lima, Liu, Mason, McEwen, Metz, Morse, Nicodemi, Over, Pacheco, Putman, Reynolds, Salmon, Sancilio, Schiavetti, Stolee, Sullivan, Tang, Teres, Vasiliev, Waddy , Wallace, Watt, West, Barnes, Bienvenue, Belois, Carney, Falk, Hahn, Happ, Haskins, Kupper, LaFountain, Lee, Pacella, Spilman, Stellrecht, Thomas
Call To Order: Chair B. Glass called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
Adoption of Agenda: The agenda was moved, seconded, and approved as printed on pp. 586-588 of the Senate Bulletin.
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Senate Meeting held on December 7, 1999, were moved, seconded, and unanimously approved as printed on pp. 531-540 of the College Senate Bulletin.
Chair’s Report (B. Glass): B. Glass brought to the attention of the Senate information about a survey of SUNY students’ knowledge of American History that apparently has a political agenda. Joe Flynn, University Faculty Senate President, sent an email to Campus Governance Leaders (CGLs) informing them that the Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE) issued a press release on February 7. This press release focused on deficiencies that SUNY students seem to have in knowledge of American History. The two contact persons named in the release were Tom Carroll (Executive Director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education) and Candace de Russy (SUNY Board of Trustees). The press release stated that 800 students were asked questions about history and current events, and it highlighted the various facts that a large percentage of students answered incorrectly. De Russy was quoted as saying, "These results underscore the need to go forward with the state university’s new general education standards, which require each student to study American history." In his email, Flynn raised several issues, including (1) methodological problems with the survey, (2) the close alignment of a trustee of a public university with a specific political interest group, (3) the timing of the survey to bring pressure when campuses are presenting their proposals for meeting general education requirements to the SUNY Provost, and (4) the timing of suggesting to the legislature that SUNY students are not being well educated when the legislators are being lobbied to increase the governor’s budget to SUNY. The day after the first email, Flynn forwarded to the CGL’s an email message he received from Tom Carroll. Carroll’s email was a response to the message sent by Flynn the day before, and it focused only on the reported deficiencies of SUNY students without addressing the concerns raised by Flynn. Since Flynn’s email was sent only to CGL’s, it is unclear how Carroll may have received a copy. B. Glass will place copies of the press release and the series of emails on reserve in Milne Library for senators to read.
Summary of the Executive Budget Proposal:
|Core Operating Budget (millions)||$1,614.4||$1,614.4|
|Operating costs funded in Stabilization Fund from University-wide reserves||$37.2||$0.0|
|Prior Year and 2000-2001 collective bargaining||$0.0||$55.8|
|Charter Schools Institute||$0.0||$0.3|
|1999-2000 Legislative Additions||$0.0||($5.6)|
|Total Spending Plan||$1,651.6||$1,689.0|
|Core Operating Budget (millions)||$1,614.4||$1,614.4|
|Total Current Spending Plan||$1,689.0|
|Amount over 1999-2000 budget: 4.6%||$74.6|
|From Operating Reserves||$37.2|
|Total Spending Plan||$1,651.6||$1,689.0|
|Actual "Operating Increase": 2.3%||$37.4|
Provost’s Report (B. Dixon): In the Provost’s absence, Associate Provost D. Gordon reported on three items:1) Two more public forums will be held on the recommendations of the Strategic Planning Group: Wednesday, February 23rd, 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. in the Ballroom Lounge, and Friday, February 25th, 1:30 p.m. in the Ballroom Lounge.
2) A national search will soon begin to replace Associate Provost Bruce Ristow, who retired in December.
|3)||Searches for approximately 25 new faculty are underway in several departments.|
Central Council (A. Gridley): In A. Gridley’s absence, Bethany Haskins reported on two items:
1. A trial run of the Rochester Shuttle Bus program is currently being offered. The intent of the program is to offer students an affordable, safe, and convenient mode of transportation to the greater Rochester area. The bus picks up students from the MacVittie College Union and drops them off in Rochester sites with easy access to other transportation, such as taxis and EZRider (a dedicated loop shuttle around Rochester), and to cultural, social, and educational activities. Last weekend, one of two scheduled runs was canceled due to the weather, but approximately a dozen students used the bus on its Saturday run. After two more trial runs (Thursday night and Sunday during the day), the Student Association will determine whether the program should be continued in some form. Faculty members are encouraged to use the Rochester Shuttle Bus to bring students to Rochester for events that will complement their classroom education.
2. At its February 9th business meeting, the Central Council unanimously passed a resolution to support the efforts of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) to maintain the integrity and stability of the Student Activity Fee. The coalition is being formed to create a foundation of support that can be used to address the Supreme Count’s decision on University of Wisconsin Board of Trustees v. Southworth. The Student Association is in support of the University of Wisconsin and their advocacy of maintaining the responsibility of apportioning the student activity fee within the university’s administration and/or its student government association.
Reports of the Standing Committees
Undergraduate Curriculum (T. Bazzett): T. Bazzett noted the approval of the December 7 Senate of the UCC motion for packaging of proposals by department. This packaging still allows separate discussion of individual proposals in the package. The following packaged proposals were moved for second reading.
Business: The package including the following proposals was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously:
|Course Deletion:||Econ 261 Legal Environment of the Economy (course content remains under Mgmt 261) (p. 482) |
Change prerequisite for Mgmt 390 Strategic Management (p. 483)
Several Departments: The following courses have not been offered for five years. The motion to delete the courses was seconded and approved unanimously.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 WritingSociology: The package including the following proposals was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously:
|New Course:||Socl 285 Sociology of Sex & Gender Diversity (pp. 490-502)|
|Course Deletion:||Socl 221 Field Project on Social Inequality (p. 503)|
Interdisciplinary: The following proposal was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously:
Revision of Minor Program in Environmental Studies (pp. 504-507): Add Biol 311 Plant Taxonomy to third-level electives
Biology: Revision of Major Program to delete Computer Science requirements (pp. 508-511). NOTE: This proposal was inadvertently included in the agenda. It has not yet passed UCC.
History: The package including the following proposals was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously:
|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: The proposal for Course Revision in Danc 265 Dance Ensemble (p. 513, Add co-requisite) was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously.
Physics: The proposal for a New Course: Phys 314 Fluid Mechanics (pp. 514-517) was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously.
Interdisciplinary: The proposal for Revision of Minor Program in Linguistics (pp. 518-522) was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously.
Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review (B. Gohlman): The minutes of the last Policy Committee meeting are on pp. 588-589 of the Senate Bulletin. The committee voted to bring to the Senate a General Education proposal for a foreign language requirement, but would like to postpone first reading of the proposal pending campus-wide forums. Some foreign language requirement has been mandated by the Board of Trustees (BOT). At the forum, the Dean’s office will present data on the number of students impacted by the proposed policy and on other relevant issues. The new General Education requirements are supposed to be in place by Fall, 2000. Information on the schedule of the forums will be distributed as soon as possible. A motion on the proposal will be presented at the March 28th Senate meeting. The Committee will meet again next Tuesday, February 29, at 4:00 p.m. in Welles 111.
Graduate Academic Affairs (J. Bushnell): Minutes of the last GAAC meeting are printed in the Bulletin. No other report.
Faculty Affairs Committee (N. Schiavetti):
1) The Subcommittee on Student Evaluation of Teaching met today and will meet again next Tuesday to discuss the results of the Forums on the SOFI. An outline of the content of the forums is in the Senate Bulletin, on pp. 562-563 and 582. The full FAC will meet on March 14th to discuss their conclusions and make a motion to the Senate regarding their recommendations.
2) The FAC subcommittee on continuing appointment and promotion is continuing its discussions.
Student Affairs (E. Crosby): SAC is continuing to discuss issues regarding student social space on campus.
B. Glass noted that an earlier list of Senate meetings had identified March 28th as an "as needed" meeting. It will be needed.
B. Glass reported that the Executive Committee will meet on Thursday, February 24, to discuss the wording of the constitutional amendment regarding FPC (developed as charged by the Nominating Committee).
M. Teres noted that the Fine Arts Core Committee has approved core credit for several existing courses, and he asked about the next step in the process. S. Bailey replied that the approvals should next go to UCC for consideration.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm.
Joan C. Ballard, Secretary of the College Senate
Present: B. Glass, C. Leary, M. Mohan, B. Gohlman, J. Bushnell, T. Bazzett,
E. Wallace, E. Crosby, K. Cylke, B. Dixon, B. Haskins.
Call To Order: Chair B. Glass called the meeting to order at 12:52 pm.
Adoption of Agenda: The agenda was approved as printed.
President’s Report (C. Dahl): No report.
Provost’s Report (B. Dixon): Provost Dixon reported on two items:
1. The first two forums on the goals identified by the Strategic Planning Committee have provided worthwhile discussion and good feedback, although they were lightly attended. It is unclear whether the light attendance means the topics are not controversial or that the goals are acceptable. J. Bushnell noted that she had received feedback from at least one faculty member who felt the College Union was not a good location for the forums. K. Cylke reported feedback suggesting that the forums were not seen as important. He noted that the last large turn-outs were for open forums held by the curriculum task force, when the outcome involved potentially big change related to FTEs and course offerings. The strategic goals are seen as so generalized that they are not threatening and do not require action from most faculty members. B. Dixon noted that the small number of people who attended made very helpful suggestions that will be incorporated into language changes on the goals statements. One more forum will be held Friday afternoon. Then the Provost will meet with department chairs about the statement and ask them to bring it up in the departments for discussion. The Vice-Presidents in the non-academic areas also will be discussing the goals in their units.
2. B. Dixon noted that she had been receiving calls asking for information about sabbaticals (e.g., How many applications? How many approved? How many deferred?, etc.). As a final report had not been given to the chair of the Professional Leave Review (PLR) Committee, she was reluctant to give the information out before the chair of the committee had the information. Inasmuch as the Constitution does not speak to the report to the Senate, she asked the Executive Committee for any clarification they might provide regarding past practice on the report on sabbaticals and leaves. Specifically, is the report sent to Senate, and if so, to whom? K. Cylke noted that the head of the faculty professional leave committee normally gives a report to the Senate Chairperson, who publishes it in the Bulletin. B. Dixon asked how the committee chair obtains the information: Does the Provost or President write the report? K. Cylke responded that the chair of the committee writes the report. B. Dixon asked how the chair obtained the information. K. Cylke speculated that the committee chair probably gains the information through conversations. The committee makes a formal report to the college community through the Senate. B. Dixon asked whether her office or the President's office was to initiate a formal report to the leave committee. K. Cylke noted that the question brought up an issue about which he recently had received many email concerns. At least eight specific concerns about the sabbatical/leave process appear to fall into three broad categories. The first involves "criteria," including concerns about the Board of Trustees (BOT) criteria for sabbaticals and leaves, the faculty committee’s interpretation of the campus criteria, and the Provost’s office interpretation of the criteria. Second are concerns about equal access to sabbaticals and leaves by some UUP-covered employees, such as librarians. In addition to concerns about criteria and access, a third group of concerns involve the lack of consistency across time in funding for sabbaticals. There may be enough concern on campus about these issues to raise a larger discussion about the criteria, access and funding questions, in addition to the Provost’s procedural question. It may be useful to bring the issues to the Faculty Development Committee, the Faculty Affairs Committee, or an impartial ad-hoc committee (perhaps made up of people who have received sabbaticals and are now ineligible). B. Glass suggested that she could talk to former chairs of the committee to help answer the Provost’s question about writing the report, but that further discussion might be needed on the larger question raised by K. Cylke. B. Dixon asked her to find out how the President’s final decisions on sabbaticals and leaves were communicated in the past to the committee chair so that he or she could write the final report. Returning to the larger question, B. Glass asked for feedback from the rest of the Executive Committee about the need for an ad-hoc committee or charge to an existing committee. B. Dixon noted that the Professional Leave Review (PLR) Committee has also raised some concerns over the last couple of years about the quality of the proposals. K. Cylke noted that he had included those concerns in his first category about criteria. B. Dixon suggested that the criteria have not changed over the last few years. K. Cylke explained that one example of a concern raised to him was that the BOT criteria are subtly different from the local criteria, with local criteria favoring research proposals as opposed to other types of faculty development leaves. B. Dixon noted that this example may involve an interpretation by the specific committee. She suggested that an ad-hoc committee on these issues probably should not include faculty who were currently applying or who had been denied a sabbatical or leave, but should include faculty who have served on the PLR Committee to gain some ideas about the committee’s concerns. K. Cylke noted that an ad-hoc committee would be better able to meet these restrictions than a standing committee. B. Dixon commented that this discussion also raised other issues about the peer review process. Specifically, to what degree do faculty actually want a peer review process that will have a great deal of weight? She stated that this year’s decisions, which spent more on sabbaticals than has ever been spent, were very much informed by the peer review process. B. Dixon described part of the process regarding funding of sabbaticals. She went over budget sheets with the department heads showing the cost of each ranked proposal (with faculty and department names removed), with options for maximum replacement and reduced replacement. The budget figure was decided before the rankings were examined. Department chairs noted it would be nice to fund all sabbaticals, but one noted the high percentage of funded applications (75%) in spite of the very large number of applications compared to previous years. K. Cylke noted that sabbaticals are important for morale, and that disseminating this information might also help morale. He suggested that forming a committee to examine these issues would also help to inform the faculty about the process and outcome. B. Glass noted that "hallway talk" may tend to be negative, while information such as that presented to the chairs may be less commonly discussed. M. Mohan also suggested that many faculty may be unaware of the quoted statistics, although the information has been available, and that a committee discussion could help to inform the campus community and reduce unfounded questions. K. Cylke pointed out that the local criteria have not been revised since the time when Colahan was Vice President of Academic Affairs, and it may be time to reexamine them. K. Cylke moved that the Executive Committee develop a charge to an ad-hoc committee to develop an exploratory look at the issue of sabbatical leaves. J. Bushnell seconded the motion. In discussion, it was agreed that a charge should be developed before appointing the committee. K. Cylke offered to write a draft of a charge and bring it to the next meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Glass reiterated that she will explore the history of the Provost’s procedural question, and B. Dixon noted that she will begin a formal report to the PLR Committee for their use in preparing the report to Senate.
Chair’s Report (B. Glass): B. Glass reported on three items.
1. B. Glass noted that a new lounge is being developed in Blake, and that D. Repinski and S. Bosch are serving as liaisons to help devise plans for furnishing the area. They would like to solicit input from the campus community, and they would like to know which email listserver would be most appropriate to use. This question raises the question of whom the lounge is intended to serve: faculty only, faculty and management/confidential, all UUP employees, or all staff. B. Glass called for discussion on the question. K. Cylke recounted the history of the development of the space. Prior to 1993-94, the Hub was almost exclusively used by faculty and administrators during the lunch hour. However, students were increasingly suffering for lack of table space in the other dining areas, so the Hub was opened to students with meal-plan cards during lunch hours. Consequently, table space in the Hub became much less available for faculty and staff. S. McKenna worked during her three-year term on the CAS board to develop a faculty dining area, and K. Cylke has continued to work toward this goal during his term on the board. Recently, T. Bell offered to give up his office space to help provide a room for a faculty lounge, at least partly to meet the need for dining space. K. Cylke noted that these efforts were never intended to be exclusive, and he argued for inclusiveness in the question of whom the lounge is for. Further discussion focused on whether or not CSEA members have adequate space for lounge areas. It was unclear whether the CSEA space around campus was dedicated as a matter of policy or of practice. It was agreed that the lounge would be available to all staff, although it was likely that primarily faculty and other UUP members would use the space. B. Gohlman asked whether students would also be included. K. Cylke and others noted that students could be brought as guests of faculty, but it did not seem necessary to solicit student opinion about how to furnish the room. B. Haskins noted that students were aware of the lack of a faculty dining room on campus, and she felt that faculty having a dedicated space would not offend students. She also noted the difficulty of getting student response to email listserve messages. K. Cylke suggested and all agreed that the lounge would be open to the campus community, and that the email should be sent to the allstaff listserver.
2. B. Glass reported that P. Schacht has been appointed to the rotating faculty position in the Dean’s office, and that she is having difficulty finding someone to fill his position as At-Large Senator. None of the people who previously ran for the position are available, and she would like to seek a replacement from among those who ran, but were not elected, in the last FPC election (with the rationale that these people also were nominated by their peers). B. Dixon noted that P. Schacht is still considered to occupy a faculty line, and he therefore may be eligible to continue as at-large senator. B. Dixon will work with B. Glass to determine his eligibility. B. Glass asked if it was appropriate for Schacht to retain his seat, if he still occupies a faculty line. Members agreed that it was.
3. B. Glass reported on her conversation with Kevin Lee about the student resolution regarding the Union. Because there is no precedent for a similar resolution from the full Senate, the resolution will not be presented.
Vice-Chair’s Report (C. Leary): No report.
Treasurer’s Report (M. Mohan): A donation of $400 was received from the Roark-Calnek family and was deposited to the endowment for the Roark Award. This deposit brings the Roark Fund up to a total of $1682.02.
University Faculty Senator’s Report (E. Wallace): No report.
Central Council Report (A. Gridley): B. Haskins substituted for A. Gridley, and reported on two items.
1. The Rochester Shuttle Bus will run again tonight and again on Sunday afternoon. E. Wallace asked whether a student I.D. was needed to board the bus. B. Haskins responded that an I.D. might be required to purchase a ticket, but she was sure that faculty could also ride the bus, for example to accompany a class trip.
2. Keith Barnes, student senator on the Policy Committee, along with Kyle Carter and Dr. Bonfiglio have formed a committee to evaluate all the surveys that have been taken regarding the possibility of forming space within the Union to make more of a recreational environment. K. Trainor will be working with them, as well as three other faculty/staff persons. Emails will go out next week to these people regarding their charge.
Student Affairs Committee (E. Crosby): The committee has completed its discussion of the issue of recreational space for students. The committee described by B. Haskins in her report will take up further consideration of the issue. As a result of a meeting in December with members of the SAC and the Division for Student and Campus Life, staff members of that division offered to address student concerns about social space as part of their jobs. The Bonfiglio-Carter-Barnes committee is the first step.
Faculty Affairs Committee (N. Schiavetti): No report.
Policy Committee (B. Gohlman): B. Gohlman reported that he is still working to find times to schedule forums on the question of the foreign language requirement. He also noted that J. Allen initiated a good debate on some of the issues on the FACTALK listserver. B. Gohlman reported that a new question may be sent to the Policy Committee regarding General Education issues. Specifically, the question regards allowing core courses to count toward the major. B. Dixon asked whether the Policy Committee considered the new goals statements in their discussion of the foreign language requirement proposal. B. Gohlman stated that the new goals were not specifically discussed, but the committee generally felt that a language requirement was an important aspect of the curriculum.
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (T. Bazzett): UCC is continuing to have problems passing the School of Education proposals. T. Bazzett is not optimistic about completing the process this year. The School of Education will offer some changes to their proposals at the next UCC meeting, but the changes appear to be relatively small and may not address the concerns of the UCC. It is unclear what will happen if the deadline is not met. B. Dixon asked whether she should be at the next meeting, and T. Bazzett agreed that she should. K. Cylke offered his congratulations and thanks to T. Bazzett for chairing a difficult committee in a difficult year. T. Bazzett noted that the committee has done exceptional work this year, and that discussions have remained congenial. However, agreement on the remaining issues does not appear possible before the April 1st deadline of sending the program to the State. B. Glass noted that the April 1st deadline may be a local deadline for getting the proposals through two readings of Senate in time for publication in the Bulletin. T. Bazzett noted that the major concern was with the Elementary Education program, on which there has been little compromise. There has been an extension to next fall for the Secondary Education program. B. Dixon noted that her office will work with the School of Education to develop workable compromises.
B. Glass noted that Executive Committee members had received copies of the Nominating Committee’s proposed wording for the Constitutional Amendment regarding the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) election procedures, as well as proposals from the Policy Committee and from a member of the English department (through the Nominations Committee) about changes to the wording. B. Glass called for discussion on the proposed wording changes. The first question involved the sentence, "Disinterested persons will be responsible for asking to have their names removed" (from the list of eligible). Proposed changes included "Those unwilling to serve will be responsible…" and "Those not wishing to serve will be responsible…" K. Cylke suggested that the proposal for soliciting all eligible faculty and requiring "disinterested" persons to remove their names from the list may create an unnecessary email or paper jam. It may be better to ask "interested" persons to submit their names for consideration. B. Glass noted that the committee has discussed in the past the problem of having to call all the people who have not responded, but this year’s committee did not wish to take out the language about this process. B. Gohlman moved to change the term "disinterested persons" to "those not wishing to serve." K. Cylke seconded the motion. The motion was approved with two abstentions.
B. Glass called for discussion of the statement, "The Nominations Committee shall ensure that the number of Full Professors among the nominees emerging from the Departments shall consist of at least double the mandatory number to be elected." The Policy Committee suggested replacing this sentence with, "The slate shall include at least double the mandatory number of Full Professors to be elected." B. Glass noted that neither of the sentences specified how this ratio was to be accomplished, and she asked why Policy Committee had decided not to include a specific procedure. B. Gohlman reported that the language of the original statement was somewhat confusing, and that the committee decided to use a statement that focused on the end result and that used a sentence structure parallel to the previous statements about what the Nominating Committee "shall" do. B. Gohlman moved, and K. Cylke seconded this change (as stated above). B. Glass agreed that the original statement was somewhat wordy, but she noted that the sentence also suggested how the ratio would be accomplished. She questioned whether the shorter sentence might suggest that the Nominating Committee could go to sources other than the list of Department’s nominees to seek additional Full Professors. K. Cylke argued that the first sentence in item #4 made clear that "The Nominations Committee shall compile the nominations from departments and create a slate of nominees…" J. Bushnell agreed with this interpretation. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Glass noted that other suggestions regarding consistent capitalization of "dept." and "dept. chair" will be done. She noted that Policy Committee also raised the question of what happens when a vacancy occurs on the FPC. She reported that the current practice is for the Senate Chair to go back to the election results and contact the person with the next highest number of votes. B. Gohlman noted that Policy Committee thought that this was so, but wondered whether this procedure should be specified and clarified. B. Glass thought that the procedure was specified in the By-Laws. J. Bushnell checked the By-Laws and found no mention of the procedure. B. Glass suggested that such wording could be discussed at the next Executive Committee meeting. C. Leary asked whether the proposed wording of the amendment would include specific dates (as in the original proposal) or wording such as "the middle of the first week". B. Glass reported that the latter was the case, and that this was the wording that was reviewed by the Policy Committee and placed in the Senate Bulletin.
B. Glass asked the Executive Committee to give some thought to a question regarding the FAC work on the SOFI issue. Specifically, if the subcommittee proposes using a national form, and if the full FAC agrees with the proposal, and if the proposal is brought to first reading in the Senate (on March 28), the Senate decision may be based on less than optimal information on the issues involved. A representative of one of the companies that produce a national form could be brought to campus early in April. B. Glass asked whether it would be acceptable for the subcommittee to make a presentation at the Senate meeting to help inform Senators of the issues (particularly since the Forums were lightly attended). E. Wallace noted that a precedent had been set a few years ago in a special Senate meeting with a special, single-item agenda, which may also have been about the SOFIs. K. Cylke noted that it would not be unusual for the subcommittee to make a presentation defending their proposal. B. Glass suggested that the March 28 meeting could be used for the presentation. Enough meetings would still be left for a first and second reading, particularly if the committee had a back-up proposal ready for the April 11 meeting in case the first proposal failed first reading. B. Haskins noted that FAC met on Tuesday and the student members advocated for an informational meeting at Senate, given that student turn-out at the Forums was light. K. Cylke suggested that a special Senate meeting for such a presentation would likely be as lightly attended as the Forums; a presentation at a regular Senate meeting would me more useful. B. Glass suggested that she could consult with the committee about the value of making the presentation earlier (at the March 7 meeting). K. Cylke argued against inviting a representative of a for-profit company to speak at Senate. B. Glass noted that she had not considered bringing the consultant to Senate. B. Dixon suggested that bringing a consultant to campus might be useful to help faculty determine how to use the feedback from the form. She also cautioned against worrying too much about Senate deadlines. Waiting one more year before changing the SOFIs would be less damaging than making a quick, but uninformed change. E. Wallace noted that the current form was similarly rushed through because of deadlines. B. Dixon also argued for keeping a form for several years (whatever form is used) to allow examining consistency across time. K. Cylke noted that the question may require a Constitutional amendment or Policy change. B. Haskins noted that the faculty on FAC are concerned that a new committee next year might in effect start over on the process of examining the SOFIs. J. Bushnell noted that the Constitutional description of FAC duties does not state that they must examine the SOFIs every few years. It must therefore be a policy rather than a constitutional issue.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 1:53 pm.
Joan C. Ballard, Secretary of the College Senate
Members present: Becky Bienvenue, Charlie Freeman, Ed Gillin,
Bill Gohlman (Chair), Savi Iyer, Sonya Landes, Jeff Over, Emily Spilman, Don Watt
Guest: Tom Greenfield
Chairman Gohlman called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. He reported
two items of business for the committee's deliberation: Admission Requirements to the Ella Cline Shear School of Education, and Office Hours Policies by Departments.
1. Gohlman distributed a list of proposed pre-major admission requirements to the Ella Cline Shear School of Education (Ed. Note: follows these minutes in the printed Bulletin). He explained that the charge to the School of Education included a report of assets used for determining admission and a description of the procedures used for evaluating the progress of admitted candidates toward graduation. Greenfield presented some background for the proposed based on the issue of enrollment caps at Geneseo. He submitted that there were two factors to be addressed in considering the proposal: a) the standards required for entrance into the program could extend the time some community college transfer students would need to complete their undergraduate degrees here, and b) the supervising of 25 hours of service-learning (point #4 in the Pre-Major Policies attachment) could cause some staffing problems.
Bienvenue and Over pursued questions about possible disadvantages of the proposal for student transfers. Greenfield suggested the School of Education would handle difficulties on a case-by-case basis and with realistic flexibility, e. g., the service-learning requirement might be treated as a co-requisite. He submitted that the precise nature of the proposal's impact on transfers would be determined substantially by directions taken as a result of the College's curriculum revisions.
Gohlman asked the committee if it would be useful to invite representatives from the Admissions Office to attend our next meeting in two weeks. The committee voted by acclamation (silent) in favor of his suggestion.
2. Gohlman thought the committee could benefit by learning what individual department policies were concerning office hours - e.g. how many hours per week? how arranged? enforced? In an effort most expeditiously to gather this information, Gohlman unceremoniously recruited the committee's membership to serve on a collective fact-finding mission. Each committee member was urged to sign up for two departments to approach in order to ask about how they handled office hours. Committee members faithfully acceded to Gohlman's leadership.
3. Greenfield reported that there was an incipient proposal afoot to allow students to count one course in the major for common core credit. This proposal, he advised, was being considered in the light of implications from the current Foreign Language requirement proposal. The main concern is to ease the load of what could be perceived as an over-structured curriculum.
4. Gohlman set the next meeting of the committee at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
March 14 in Welles 111. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Members present: S. Bailey, B. Brennan, J.F. Morse, K. Hahn, A. Happ, H. Howe,
K. Jones, J. Kirkwood, B. Mason, O. Nicodemi, M. Stolee, R.Vasiliev, S. West
Guests: M. Jensen, D. Marozas, S. Salmon, M.E. Schmidt, D. Showers
Chair T. Bazzett called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and asked for approval of minutes from 2/1/00. Minutes approved unanimously with minor editorial changes.
T. Bazzett then asked for approval of the agenda.
M. Stolee asked for clarification regarding the agenda item requesting recommendations from the UCC for changes to SOE proposals. She pointed out that such recommendations had been made at previous meetings.
M. Jensen responded that SOE wanted proposals presented to UCC in a context of more complete description of State regulations and other guiding perspectives. Following that presentation SOE would then accept recommendations from UCC for specific changes.
M. Stolee pointed out that UCC is not intended to propose specific changes to proposals, but rather is charged as a review committee that may approve or not approve proposals.
There was some discussion from other committee members regarding the role of UCC in establishing and revising course and program proposals. It was then agreed that the committee could make recommendations to the SOE regarding the proposals, if those recommendations were made to address concerns of the committee regarding proposals and not intended to shape the overall design or content of the proposal itself. Agenda was then unanimously approved.
D. Showers then gave a presentation designed to explain the complexity of the parameters that are affecting the current program proposals. In particular he pointed out that the old programs were influenced primarily by State regulations (from 10 years earlier) and that these previous regulations were written in fairly broad terms. The new regulations, however, have been expanded from 4 paragraphs of broad terms to 10 pages (over the past 10 years). The conceptual framework being used is called for by the new regulations. Furthermore, the regulations are tied to the accreditation process. The accreditation, in turn, requires meeting national standards. In addition, issues of technology and diversity are needed for accreditation. These need to be integrated into courses, or may require courses themselves. In sum, both accreditation and regulations drive the current proposals.
He also noted that the new regulations have redefined "concentration" within the major from the old requirement of 24-25 hours to 30 hours. The general education core is also more strictly defined as is the pedagogical core. There is also now a mandated time required in field work.
He then explained the impact of these regulations in terms of "minutes" of class time and requirements to be met in that time. In general, the new regulations result in less "class time" with 48 hours of education requirements than the old program allowed in 42 hours. He further pointed out that the new regulations listed more requirements in the reduced class time. Although some of those requirements could be addressed in student field experience, he pointed out that the pedagogical core has required items for those field experiences.
B. Brennan then commented that all of these issues do appear complicated, and that his sense was that the UCC members were certain that these requirements had been adequately addressed in the current proposals. However, it was also his sense that the UCC was less concerned with these issues than they were with the issue of then proposed number of course hours required of students entering the program. He acknowledged that it is nice to understand the many details of the State requirements, but that these details were not the focus of UCC concerns.
M. Jensen and J. Morse then distributed copy of the Learning Standards for New York State, along with a series of six handouts to describe the conceptual basis for the program (see pp. 632-647 in this Bulletin). They also offered a visual presentation of how the components of the proposed programs were arranged to be contained within a 4 year plan. It was further explained that the guiding documents for these proposals included the NYS Regents' learning standards, the NYS Teacher Education Regulations, the SOE conceptual framework and accreditation standards (e.g. NCATE), as well as recognition of the need to develop further partnerships with local schools.
Following the presentation, D. Showers noted that the information provided may not change the issues and concerns of UCC, but that it does give some perspective of the parameters within which the SOE is working.
R.Vasiliev than asked for clarification regarding student teaching and field experiences.
J. Morse responded that student teaching cannot be counted as a part of the 100 hours of field experience. She further clarified that the State requirement was 2 placements of 20 days each.
S. Bailey complimented the design of the program in the face of the challenges. Noting that in terms of meeting the State requirements it could be conceived as representing an "ideal" program. However, she also expressed reservations about the complexity of the schedule from the perspective of students entering the program. She also expressed concern over potential difficulties in staffing the proposed programs. She then noted that when constructing the new programs, the SOE may have overlooked potential areas of requirement overlap in existing programs. Furthermore, a new program designed from scratch (rather than by utilizing several courses established for the old program) would have been less likely to include areas of overlap possibly reducing courses required of students. She then noted that the proposed total number of required hours and lack of flexibility remained her primary area of concern.
R.Vasiliev also expressed concerned over flexibility. She noted that the student teaching requirement of 2 x 20 days only constituted 8 weeks. She then suggested that if student teaching assignments in the current proposals were reduced to the required 8 weeks, this would free up approximately 7 credits worth of time for electives and other experiences.
S. West responded that he was also concerned, but that he believed student teaching is one of the most valuable experiences in which students can participate. In this regard, he felt student teaching would not be a good place to reduce credits in an effort to increase overall schedule flexibility. He considered this practical experience to be beneficial to some students, and essential for others.
R.Vasiliev acknowledged the value of student teaching and clarified that she was by no means in favor of reducing credits in this experience. However, given the constraints of the current programs, this may be a place to consider cutbacks.
K. Jones then asked if there were any ways in which this large block of hours (student teaching) could be enriched to include more requirements. If this were possible, the current hours may meet more State requirements.
T. Bazzett then asked if it would be possible to allow State requirements to determine "required hours" of student teaching in the program, and then allow students to elect additional hours of student teaching if they desired a more extensive experience. In this regard, students could be advised that student teaching is a valuable experience and that it would be in their best interest to elect to participate in additional hours beyond the required numbers, but that these additional hours would not be mandated by the program.
J. Morse then noted that one problem with reducing the student teaching experience is that schools participating in the program desire longer, rather than shorter, placements. Furthermore, she warned that shorter placements may reduce the best part of the experience... that being the end of the student teaching term when the student begins to sense and demonstrate a level of mastery.
M. Stolee tried to summarize the impasse SOE and UCC were experiencing. She acknowledged that SOE had submitted well-crafted programs. UCC on the other hand was extremely concerned that these programs consume what they considered an unacceptable amount of student time in requirements. Furthermore, this central concern of the UCC had not been addressed in the past three meetings and remained unresolved. She further felt the UCC is not equipped to give specific recommendations to the SOE on how to resolve this concern.
O. Nicodemi agreed and suggested two options for moving past the impasse. First, UCC members concerned about the number of hours could define a number of hours, above which they would not vote to approve. Second, UCC could continue to make general suggestions regarding areas of compromise, from which SOE could try to address the issues without a given set of hours stated. Regardless of the approach taken, she felt that to resolve this issue UCC would need some indication that SOE is willing to consider making changes to the proposals. She further felt that over the past 3 weeks SOE had given no indication to suggest such a willingness to compromise.
M. Jensen responded that SOE was continuing to take suggestions from the UCC back to their department for consideration. She pointed out that no changes could be made during the course of the UCC meeting.
S. West responded that he was under the impression that a collection of possible suggestions was gathered by SOE at the previous meeting for such consideration. In this regard, he agreed with O. Nicodemi that SOE was giving the impression of being unresponsive.
D. Showers assured the UCC that previous suggestions had been taken back to SOE for consideration. However, members of SOE felt that the present meeting should be used to insure that UCC understood all information associated with this program. After this meeting SOE would have a sense that the UCC understood all the factors associated with this program. Furthermore, with the sense that UCC had been fully informed of these mitigating factors, SOE could begin to consider UCC suggestions for changes.
S. West asked if SOE could see how it appears that SOE is being unresponsive?
D. Showers acknowledged this and asked if UCC could understand that SOE had felt some issues regarding these proposals had not been clearly presented to UCC.
B. Brennan noted that there seems that the positions regarding these proposals had polarized into a "SOE side" and a "liberal arts" side. He further pointed out that each side has seemed intent on paring down the position of the other. He suggested a fresh approach should be taken to work toward some type of common ground.
K. Jones noted that related to B. Brennan's concerns, it seems that UCC has been put in a position of trying to develop or amend curriculum, a job for which they are not adequately prepared (or charged) to do. She noted that UCC does not need to hear more about the requirement constraints around which the program was developed. Nor does UCC need additional evidence of how well crafted the proposals are to meet the requirements. Rather, the UCC would like to now hear how the proposals can now be adapted to fit the larger context of Geneseo's premier liberal arts college experience.
M. Jensen suggested that when designing the proposals, SOE was working toward a premier teacher education program at a premier liberal arts college. Within the context of this program, it was intended the liberal arts experience would be included.
S. Bailey pointed out that one further consideration is that the Dean's office is still waiting for SOE to submit a proposal for faculty staffing of the proposals. In this regard, the UCC was actually engaging in debate over a program that has not yet been signed off by the Dean's office. The UCC was allowed to consider these proposals prior to Dean's office approval to facilitate discussion and hopefully expedite the review process.
T. Bazzett then closed by saying that UCC is anticipating approval of these programs prior to the next UCC meeting (February 29th). He then noted UCC would not be meeting on the 22nd because of the time conflict with Senate. The following Tuesday (February 29th) the UCC would meet to consider whatever form of the proposal the SOE would be presenting at that time. The meeting will begin with consideration of proposals put forth by the SOE and an explanation of any changes that have been made to those proposals since the last meeting. The UCC will then take a straw vote, to determine whether there is majority support for approval of the program proposals. If at that time, a majority straw vote suggests approval, the Committee may commence with consideration of proposals for individual course changes, deletions and additions.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:40 P.M.Submitted by Terry Bazzett