11 May 2001
Sometime in September
Next Senate and/or Committee Meeting
Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: email@example.com Phone: 245-5383
Comments from the Chair
College Senate--1 May 2001
2001–2002 College Senate--1 May 2001
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report
Student Affairs Committee Report
Comments from the Chair
I have updated the Constitution to reflect the changes that were approved in the Spring Elections.
An ad hoc committee consisting of the Provost, Chris Leary, Terry Bazzett, and Susan Bailey is beginning to discuss procedures relating to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and submissions of curriculum proposals. If you have interest in this process and wish to influence the work of the committee, please contact one of the members of the committee.
Minutes of the College Senate Meeting
1 May 2001
4:00 p.m. Newton 204
Attendance. H.Almubaid, S.Bailey, J.Ballard, T.Bazzett, B.Bonfiglio, B.Briggs, M.Brummel, M.-M.Chang, E.Cleeton, J.Curran, B.Dixon, C.Faulkner, J.Ferrell, C.Filice, E.Gillin, B.Glass, B.Gohlman, A.Gu, K.Hahn, E.Hall, A.Happ, G.Hartvigsen, D.Hill, T.-K.Hon, H.Hoops, H.Howe, T.Hurlburt, K.Jones, B.Joshi, E.Kallin, S.Kirsh, R.LaFountain, C.Leary, J.Lerch, M.Lima, J.L.Liu, J.Lovett, T.Macula, A.Martucci, S.McKenna, J.McLean, D.Metz, J.Mounts, S.Muench, K.Nichols, O.Nicodemi, J.Oberg, J.Over, J.Pacella, P.Pacheco, W.Pogozelski, E.Putman, A.-M.Reynolds, S.Salmon, P.Schact, N.Schiavetti, M.E.Schmidt, A.Snyder, E.Spilman, L.Stellrecht, M.Stolee, D.Sullivan, C.Truglia, E.Wallace, C.Wixson, B.Murphy, J.Welles, S.Monnat, T.Gates, D.Gordan, E.Blask, N.Duxbury, J.Lieberman, S.Firsch, C.Dahl, S.Padalino
I. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by C.Leary.
Adoption of the Agenda. The agenda as published on p. 454 in the Bulletin was unanimously approved.
Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes as published on pp.443-447 of the Bulletin were approved with one mischievous dissenting vote.
IV. Senate Reports
Chair's Report. C.Leary reported that applications for professional leave are due in departments on Sept 15. The Provost has arranged for a workshop for faculty who will be applying for professional leave. It will be held May 9 at 2:00 in the President's Conference Room. A call for nominations for Excellence Awards has been published in the Bulletin. These nominations, as well as nominations for promotion to distinguished ranks, are due to T.Bazzett, new Vice-Chair of the Senate, Sept. 17. C.Leary then asked for a moment of silence to remember members of the College Community who passed away during the previous year.
President's Report. The President's Report is published at the end of this document since the President was still en route from Albany.
Provost's Report. Provost Dixon advertised the workshop for sabbatical applicants that C.Leary had mentioned and noted that the idea for the workshop originated with the Sabbatical Leave Committee and with the committee chair, Laura Doan. It is to assist people who have never written a sabbatical proposal. The Provost then announced that the Strategic Planning Group has recommendations from the six working groups to form a draft of final recommendations to send to President. Once the document is finished, its goals and objectives will be used to target how resources are used in the next few years. The Provost then reminded faculty and students of the policies governing final exams, including the fact that exam times cannot be changed without permission from the Dean, and the fact that the class must meet and hold some sort of activity during the scheduled exam time. On behalf of the Senate and faculty, she wished the students luck on their exams.
A discussion then ensued regarding the laptop program. J.L.Liu asked how the college will be preparing for a laptop program, and would faculty be providing input? The Provost first noted that there is not a mandatory laptop program in place and then replied that the administration will collect information by working with departments that are using laptops in teaching, by conducting focus groups with freshmen, and by talking with parents. She also noted that there will be faculty development workshops in the fall to talk about using technology in teaching. J.L.Liu asked if students and faculty will play any part in decision process. The Provost said that before anything is mandatory it will come before the Senate. T.Macula asked if a voluntary laptop program was already in place. The Provost said that details are not in place but said that high school seniors who have been accepted at Geneseo have been notified that they will be able to, if they wish, purchase a laptop computer at a significantly discounted rate. The letter simply stated that if people planned to purchase a computer, they may want to wait until details of agreement worked out. T.Macula asked if we know any of the specifics. The Provost said that the cost is reduced and includes warranty, software and repair. M.Brummel said that she'd heard a rumor that a contract had been signed with IBM and that the cost was $2K over two years. Provost Dixon said that as of the day before, a contract had not been signed. She did say that IBM had offered the best deal and that the cost was most likely under $2K. T.Macula asked why the college was sponsoring a program that only offered laptops? The Provost said that it was a question of volume and that offering multiple varieties would negate the deal. M.Brummel asked if $2K was a discount. The Provost said yes, particularly considering the inclusion of software, warranty, and the repair program. M.Brummel then asked why a desktop option was not available since IBM makes one. The Provost again spoke to the volume benefits of a single piece of equipment. T.Macula asked why the college has chosen exclusively laptops over exclusively desktops, saying that the decision amounts to "implicit endorsement" of a laptop. The Provost said that laptops were the recommendation of the campus-wide CTAG committee (Computer and Technology Advisory Group). She said that laptops benefit more students and reflect what is happening across the country with wireless networks. No one on CTAG had brought up a need for desktop computers. R.LaFountain said that she had heard a lot about insufficient room in computer labs and asked why computer labs were not open longer and why resources were not being directed toward more computer labs first. The Provost said that CTAG had studied what students buy for themselves and there was not a lot of information collected by the committee that spoke to a need for more public access. She acknowledge that "crunch times" in computer labs exist, but pointed out that 95% of the students have their own computers anyway. M.Brummel said that she had heard that faculty are unable to schedule classes in computer labs because students are using the labs. Provost Dixon said that the information gathered by the committee doesn't say that and that information gathered from scheduling doesn't lead to that conclusion. T.Macula then asked about a possible scenario in which a freshman gets a letter about a laptop program, thinks it's safe to assume that Geneseo is "keen on laptops" and will be used in a lot of classes, but then finds that it is not the case. The Provost directed the question to Bill Caren, Associate Vice President for Enrollment Services. He said he didn't know if T.Macula's scenario was fair or not, but in his conversations with hundreds of prospective students and parents, these individuals have responded with uniform enthusiasm. He also noted that parents are hearing of laptop programs elsewhere and since parents often want to know what to buy, having a response is helpful. M.Brummel asked if other people don't bring desktop computers to college. Provost Dixon said that yes, students bring desktops but 20% bring laptops and that percentage is increasing every year. M.Brummel then asked which departments will be using carts of laptop computers. The Provost said that Business, Computer Science, Math and possibly sections of INTD 105 will be or are using laptops and that it is not very different from using desktops in a computer lab. M.Brummel then asked if the situation is not so different, then why do it? Provost Dixon said that with laptops, professors can be more mobile. E.Kallin then asked B.Caren how the laptop program was marketed to prospective students in the email that was sent out - was it marketed as "buy a cheap laptop" or "you're going to need this.?" B.Caren said that the letter was composed in a manner of "If you plan to purchase, you may want to participate". Provost Dixon then noted that faculty have autonomy in using any methodology they choose but that laptops will not bring about a change in course content. M.Brummel then asked, "Why bother?" Provost Dixon said that the program is still voluntary and students don't have to bother if they don't wish to. T.Macula asked if any metrics are in place for assessment of the program. The Provost said no. O.Nicodemi then gave an example of a situation in which she said a cart of laptops is ideal. She teaches a class with technology and that the classrooms with computers for every students are always unschedulable. She tries to make do but said that students have lost a beneficial dimension because the technology was limited. She said that she is not necessarily endorsing the full-fledged program because she hasn't decided yet, but said that the culture is evolving in the direction of laptops.. J.L.Liu asked if a mandatory program would be implemented without coming before the Senate. The Provost said that the administration has every intention to bring it to the Senate and said it would probably go to the Policy committee first. At this point C.Leary noted that the discussion was beginning to resemble a debate and asked that questions be of a factual nature. M.Brummel asked whether the program would still become mandatory if Senate doesn't recommend it. The Provost said that the final decision with be the President's. C.Leary noted that the Senate's role is advisory.
Treasurer's Report. A.-M.Reynolds reported that $670.00 had been added to the Senate Fund Campaign, leaving a current balance of $4674.12 in the Senate fund and $1742.02 in the Roark Fund.
Vice-Chair's Report. No report.
University Faculty Senator's Report. E.Wallace said that he and C.Leary had attended a meeting in Cobleskill and that the report would be published in the Bulletin. He warned the Senate that certain trustees have decided that they would like to get involved in a review of teacher education. A new University Senate President has been elected, Joe Hildreth from SUNY Potsdam. E. Wallace said that many Senators and Campus Governance Leaders are worried about the involvement of the trustees with teacher education, considering what happened when the trustees got involved with General Education. He said that people should keep track of what happens during the summer, since trustees continue to meet.
Central Council Report. E.Kallin introduced his replacement for next year, J.Liebermann, and he introduced the 2000-2001 Council. He said that nominations are being accepted for the President's Cup Award that is presented at graduation to someone with a GPA of 2.7 or higher and who has shown leadership with the Student Association. Nominations should be sent to Nicole Duxbury.
IV. Reports of the Standing Committees
Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review Committee. E.Gillin thanked committee members for their hard work and tolerance and extended thanks to Dean Greenfield for his help.
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
The following passed unanimously.
Second Reading (all passed first reading at the Senate meeting of 10 April)
Approval for Core Credit (Bulletin p. 426)
Social Science Core
Hist 155 Politics and Power in the U.S.
Hist 161 Issues in American History I
Hist 162 Issues in American History II
Hist 260 Women in U.S. History
Hist 264 Immigration in U.S. History
Hist 155 African-American History
Hist 266 Civil Rights Movement in America
Fine Arts Core
Arts 102 Intro to the Visual Arts
Mathematics 340/Biology 340 Modeling Biological Systems (Bulletin p. 426)
Minor Course Revisions
INTD 203 Social Foundations of American Education (Bulletin p. 274)
INTD 301 (Mathematics) Topics in Secondary Education: Mathematics (Bulletin p. 403)
INTD 302 (Mathematics) Methods and Materials - Secondary Education: Mathematics (Bulletin p. 407)
Major Course Revisions
EDUC 204 Dimensions of Teaching (Adolescent Certification) (Bulletin, p. 350)
EDUC 340 Student Teaching - Middle School Education (Bulletin, p. 393)
EDUC 350 Student Teaching - High School Education (Bulletin p. 398)
INTD 300 (Science) Topics in Secondary Education: Science (Bulletin p. 286 and p. 393)
INTD 301 (English) Topics in Secondary Education: English - Literature in the Secondary English Classroom (Bulletin, p. 276)
INTD 301 (Social Studies) Topics in Secondary Education: Social Studies (Bulletin p. 346)
INTD 302 (English) Methods and materials in Secondary Education: English (Bulletin, p. 291)
INTD 302 (Foreign Languages) Methods and Materials: Foreign Languages (Bulletin, p. 313)
INTD 302 (Social Studies) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: Social Studies (Bulletin, p. 341)
INTD 302 (Chemistry) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science and Chemistry (Bulletin p. 363)
INTD 302 (Biology) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science and Biology (Bulletin, p. 369)
INTD 302 (Physics) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science and Physics (Bulletin p. 376)
INTD 302 (Earth Science) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science and Earth Science (Bulletin p. 382)
SPED 205 Teaching Secondary Learners with Special Needs (Bulletin p. 335)
EDUC 215 Foundations of Literacy (Bulletin p. 356)
EDUC 303 Field Experience (Bulletin p. 323)
Secondary Social Studies (Related Requirements) (Bulletin p. 328)
Adolescent Certification (Bulletin p. 410)
T.Bazzett concluded by thanking the members of the committee and J.Bushnell for timely "secondings" at the Senate meetings.
Faculty Affairs Committee, M.Lima thanked members of the committee and reminded people to read the UUP newsletter which explains how the committee got to the place of creating a Taskforce on Faculty Evaluation. She thanked H.Waddy for beginning the dialog on how best to evaluate teaching effectiveness with her UUP/SUNY Joint Labor-Management Campus Grant two years ago. An addendum to this issue is attached at the end of the minutes.
They met with Tom Bell from CAS to clarify issues related to Smart Cards and persuaded him to extend dining hours in the Union to 8 PM.
They worked with the President's Commission on Diversity and Community and to design an survey and interview faculty and staff.
They met with Kathy Trainor, Director of the College Union to discuss renovation of the Union and wrote a letter to President Dahl to express support for prioritization of renovation.
They successfully lobbied Milne Library to open its doors at 7:30 AM during Final Exams.
They organized a panel discussion on the proposed laptop program (Bulletin pp. 455-474).
Graduate Affairs Committee
J.Bushnell thanked the members of the committee and made the following motion that passed unanimously.
Second Reading (passed first reading at the Senate meeting of 10 April)
` Program Revision
M.A. in Speech Pathology (Bulletin p. 434)
The Senate recommends the suspension of the College's Fall 2001 voluntary laptop purchase program. Further, the Senate recommends that any future voluntary or mandatory laptop purchase program sponsored by the College after the Fall 2001 be recommended by the Senate before it is implemented.
J.Bushnell seconded the motion. T.Macula said that he was bringing the motion forward because he believed that the Senate, faculty, and students had been left out of process. He said that a voluntary program gives "endorsement without consent." He said that we don't know what the objective is, there are no benchmarks for assessment, and if we put the program on hold, it wouldn't prevent professors from using laptops because of the existence of the cart of laptops. He added that it wouldn't hurt students to wait a year, because in three years the computer will be useless. He recommended formation of an Ad Hoc committee that would then make presentation to Senate.
E.Wallace spoke against the motion, speaking from the perspective of a parent, with a senior going to college next year. He said that he appreciates the college looking for a good deal for its students and that the motion served no beneficial purpose, and in fact he could see potential harm. M. Brummel then asked E.Wallace if, as a parent, he felt comfortable going ahead with Geneseo's plan without further information. E.Wallace replied no but that he is certain that the information will come. H.Hoops spoke against the motion, citing that some students had spoken with him that very day about what the program would do for them. He said that students are waiting for the program, that more and more students will want it, that it will benefit students and the college, and he sees no reason not to go ahead. A.Gu made an analogy to calculator use, saying that ten years ago, most professors didn't require calculator, and now it's only natural to require them. He said that if the college can buy laptops, it could help the students. K.Hunt spoke in favor of the motion, saying that he feels the program is hastily assembled, and that people have been "grossly uninformed as to the specifics." He said that student concerns have been unaddressed and he wondered what harm there would be in collecting more input. He concluded by asking if an Ivy League school would do this. J.Ballard spoke in favor of the motion, saying that she objected to the process by which the program had come to the attention of the faculty. She said that it was presented as if it had already been decided on and that the link between voluntary and mandatory seemed strong and disturbed her. She also objected to the implicit recommendation of laptops, saying that it was not in the interest of students and faculty to have a recommendation of a specific type of technology. B. Bonfiglio, Vice President for Student and Campus Life, said that he was "fervently against" the proposal. He noted that good decisions can be communicated in a bad way and in retrospect, the decision could have involved more people from the community, but he reminded the Senate that the issue had been discussed for six months and that CTAG representatives had gone to the Student Association, Senate, and a full meeting of his staff. He told the Senate that CTAG had indeed tried to involve students. However, the students who had volunteered for the committee never attended meetings. He said that he was not trying to blame anyone but wanted the group to understand that effort in that regard had been put forth. He said that both at Geneseo and at his last institution, a common question of incoming students was, what computer should I buy? He believes that students should have the guidance of the institution in selecting a computer, and noted that no one is required to buy a certain kind of computer. He concluded by saying that the Senate also deserves to have all its questions answered. E.Kallin spoke in favor of the motion, saying that when students failed to show up at the scheduled meetings, steps should have been taken to recruit replacement students. He said that as an entering student, if the college had recommended buying a laptop, he would have felt pressured to do so, even in the voluntary stage. G.Hartvigsen then asked B.Caren if students are given information about what to bring to college - are questions answered regarding a car, clothes, and a food service? B.Caren replied that the college tries to be sensitive to the perceived demand. It makes an effort to provide information about such things, including refrigerators, furnishing rooms, and the college provides rental programs for items such as refrigerators. G.Hartvigsen then asked if such recommendations come before the Senate. B.Caren said no. G.Hartvigsen then wondered if, should the Senate should approve T.Macula's motion, it would change any policy or if the motion was in fact "moot". By this time, President Dahl had returned from Albany so he responded by saying that he had replied to the question several Senate meetings ago and that policy issues cover a range of options from technology to curriculum. He said that this was nowhere near a curriculum decision and the program would not change the curriculum. He said that he understands people's concerns about mandatory requirements, but that the administration is far from making anything mandatory. G.Hartvigsen then asked if the Senate were to make a recommendation, what influence would it have? Would the decision be retracted? President Dahl said that he would take the motion under advisement but that it would be difficult to retract a letter that had been sent out. M.Brummel then spoke in favor of the motion because there had been no "informed process" for the program. She said that people had agreed that students and faculty weren't sufficiently informed and if it had been agreed that it was wrong, why not correct the wrong? D.Hill spoke against the motion, saying that she was speaking on behalf of a constituency not present at the meeting, the parents of Geneseo students with whom she interacts as Director of Alumni and Parent Relations. Also, she said that it was a great relief to receive such a letter about a similar purchase program as the parent of a college freshman. H.Howe also spoke against the motion, saying that the intent of the program is simply to put tools in the hands of faculty and students and while we don't know all the answers, we need experience before we discover the answers. At this point, P.Schacht moved to vote on the motion. Associate Provost Padalino wished to clarify some misinformation but since the motion was already on the floor, a vote had to take place as to whether debate would continue or close. A hand vote took place with 30 in favor of closing debate and 23 against, so the debate continued.
Associate Provost Padalino gave additional history on what had happened with student involvement on CTAG. He said that the four students on the committee had been contacted directly when they didn't respond. Two said they would serve and two said they would not. Attempts were made to find replacements and these students did attend meetings. He also said that as far as specifics about the program go, "we know quite a bit", but that the administration is in a semi-contractual process and so care has to be taken for fear of litigation from other vendors. He said that the laptop offered will have a speed of 700MHz or greater, will have a CD/DVD rewriteable drive, 20 GBy storage, 128 MBy RAM, a wireless internal card, a wire card and a modem. He said that it really doesn't matter who makes it because parts are made by all sorts of different vendors. The cost will be $1700 - $1900 over four years and will include warranties that even extend to catastrophic events. He compared that value with what students are paying now. He said that 95% of freshmen had purchased computers at a base price of approximately $1150 without software or ethercards. If another $200-$300 is added for an ethercard and software, the cost is $1500 - $1600. All told, freshmen spent about $2.1 million dollars on computers, in addition to their Geneseo tech fee. He said that it's outrageous to ask students to pay for computer labs with a tech fee when they're already bringing computers to school and that this program would be beneficial for the students. E.Spilman noted that she had once received information from CAS about Compaq and Apple products and wondered if the college still gives out that information. M.Brummel asked if tech fees would be waved for incoming students who purchase laptops. Provost Dixon said that the tech fee pays for a lot more than just computer labs. It pays for residence hall wiring, for example. T.Macula said that if the college says that this is the laptop we say students should have, parents and students will perceive it as something they should do, and that it doesn't have to be couched in this type of language. The laptop should be considered in addition to other options. He said that Associate Provost Padalino's information is good but that it seems rushed and it would be better to have all the "ducks lined up" first. The motion was brought to a paper vote with 26 Ayes and 25 Nays and 3 Abstentions. C.Leary voted Nay, making it a tie. Since the motion requires a majority, the motion did not pass.
President' Report. President Dahl then reported on his trip to Albany. He said that he wished he was coming back with news of enough money for laptops for everyone but that this was not the case. He met with six representatives including the Democratic Majority Leader, the Dean of the Rochester delegation, the Rochester area convener, our own senator and assemblyman and a Geneseo alumnus. He said that the budget process has been very slow this year. The legislators have not even yet agreed on how much money is available for next year. The Assembly and Senate are thus far going along with the governor's recommendations that only include allocations for salary increases and are what President Dahl believes to be inadequate. The Assembly has included restoration of money for EOP plus additional faculty lines. However, President Dahl said that we can do better and when the final amount of money is available, we should contact our representatives aggressively. We need $40 million more and will have to do advocacy. He said that it will be very important to Geneseo to get 15 new tenure-track lines, a grant-writing specialist to help us get more money from other sources, and a director of the teaching and learning center. He said that he hopes we will work together with the Student Association, SUNY SA, and UUP to ask for additions at the right moment. He said that there is "some hope." He is disappointed that the two houses went along with governor but thinks that they are inclined to back off from that position. There apparently is a long history of ill will between the governor's office and other two players, but said that he had patiently pointed out in his meetings that SUNY students and faculty are unfairly the victims in such grudge matches. He doesn't think we'll see a budget before late July. While a good deal of money is available, a good deal of politics is going on as well. He said that this is "no time for apologizing and saying that this is okay and he pledges his efforts to "lead a charge." On a different note, the President said that he is pleased to announce that the Diversity Commission is preparing a report. The Commission has accomplished a lot, although there is still a long way to go. B.Owens, the former chair, is stepping down, having done a "nice job." The President is appointing co-chairs as replacements: B.McCoy and Dean Sancilio. Lastly, he said that he had received a CC of a letter sent to Bob Wayland Smith, the new College Council Chair and father of two Geneseo alumna with plans to ask Rochester leaders to support the college.
Adjournment. C.Leary concluded the meeting by saying that it had been an honor and privilege to work with the members and thanked them for their time and commitment. He extended special thanks to Casey Bickle and to the student assistants. He issued a reminder that "an academic community only functions well when there is honest and open debate." The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 PM.