College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin 29
Pages 912 - 931
19 May 2000

Page  Topic
  Call for Nominations
913 Excellence Awards and Distinguished Ranks
913 Sabbatical and Professional Leave Deadline
913 Respond to FPC Self-Nomination/Self-Rejection Letter
  Message from the Chair
914 Thank you to Intersession/Summer School Committee
914-924 May 2 College Senate Meeting
924-925 Opening Meeting of 2000-2001 Senate 
926-931 Student Rating Form: Some Common Misconceptions and Beliefs - R. Arreola

Annual Reports and printed Index to the 1999-2000 Bulletins will appear next week in the final bulletin of the year


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



I. Excellence Awards and Distinguished Ranks

Nominations are now being accepted for the following SUNY Ranks

  Distinguished Teaching Professor
  Distinguished Service Professor
  Distinguished Librarian
  Distinguished Professor

And for the following Chancellor’s Awards:

  Excellence in Teaching
  Excellence in Librarianship
  Excellence in Professional Service

Nominations for these ranks and awards must be submitted in writing by Monday,
September 18, 2000 to Jan Lovett, College Senate Vice Chair, Bailey 210. Confidential nominations should consist of a 1-2 page nomination letter describing the nominee’s qualifications for the award or rank.

Descriptions of the criteria and eligibility for these awards and ranks are available at:



Reminder of Deadline for Professional Leave Requests

Proposals for Sabbatical Leaves and Title F Leaves should be submitted to departments by September 15, 2000.

To those eligible to serve on Faculty Personnel Comm: Please respond to NomCom's letter asking about your willingness to be nominated. If you believe you're eligible, but have not received a letter, contact C.R. Bailey, History Dept.


Thank you to the Intersession/Summer School Committee

I'd like to thank Bob O'Donnell (chair) and the Intersession/Summer School Committee for the work they've done this year in response to an ambitious charge to examine both Intersession and Summer School. In their Interim Report in February, they raised many of the important issues surrounding both these programs. During Spring semester, they have been involved with data collection. With Jeff Gutenberg's help, they surveyed 1400 students and are in the process of analyzing the 300+ responses. Their report will probably be presented to Senate Chair Chris Leary early Fall 2000.

Minutes of the Final Meeting of the 1999-2000 College Senate
May 2, 2000

Present: Bailey, Ballard, Bandoni, Bazzett, Bonfiglio, Bosch, S., Brennan, Broikou, Bushnell, Cleeton, Crosby, Cylke, Dahl, Davies, Dixon, Feeley, Ferrell, Fletcher, Freeman, Gillin, Glass, Goeckel, Gohlman, Greenfield, Gridley, Gu, Hartvigsen, Hatton, Hill, Hon, Howe, Iyer, Jones, Joshi, Kirkwood, Kirsh, Koch, Landes, Leary, Lima, Lovett, Mason, McCoy, McEwen, Metz, Miller, Mohan, Morse, Nicodemi, Over, Pacheco, Pollot, Putman, Reynolds, Salmon, Sancilio, Schacht, Schiavetti, Stolee, Tang, Teres, Vasiliev, Waddy , Wallace, Barnes, Bienvenue, Carney, Coleman, Falk, Hahn, Happ, Haskins, Kupper, LaFountain, Lee, Pacella, Spilman, Stellrecht, Thomas

Visitors: P. Henry, S. Watts, Monnat, Knerian, Brown, Solan, Carter, Buffum, Duxbury, Glassbrook, Kallin

Call To Order: Chair B. Glass called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda: The agenda was approved as printed on pp. 890-893 of the Senate Bulletin.

Approval of Minutes: Approval of the minutes of the Senate Meeting held on April 11, 2000, was moved by J. Bushnell and seconded by B. Gohlman. B. Glass added the names of H. Howe and R. Bonfiglio to the list of those present. With this addition, the minutes were unanimously approved as printed on Bulletin pp. 874-884.

Senate Reports

Chair’s Report (B. Glass): B. Glass reported on three items:

  1. B. Glass thanked the candidates who ran for Senate positions. Results of the election are included in Bulletin #27. The amendment concerning election procedures for the Faculty Personnel Committee passed, and it will be added to the online copy of the Senate Constitution.
  2. B. Glass offered her congratulations and best wishes for graduating seniors.
  3. B. Glass also offered thanks to the faculty and student Senators for their hard work in Senate and Senate committees this year.
President’s Report (C. Dahl): President Dahl reported that the higher education budget process is about where it was two weeks ago. The $80 million increase in the SUNY budget remains intact. There will likely be some changes in TAP eligibility and funding.

Provost’s Report (B. Dixon): Provost Dixon reported on two items.

  1. Hiring is complete for 15 faculty positions. Several searches that were not completed will restart next Fall.
  2. Over the summer, the Provost's office will begin to rewrite the campus administrative policies and procedures to help bring the written policies in line with current practice.
Treasurer’s Report (M. Mohan): No report.

University Faculty Senator’s Report (E. Wallace): The UFS met last Friday and Saturday in Utica. A written report can be found in the Bulletin. (See Bulletin #28, pp. 907-911.) Much of the discussion centered on General Education requirements. One resolution was passed, although not unanimously, that recommended against disrupting the fall schedule to implement the BOT mandate, and that encouraged the BOT, Chancellor, and Provost to follow a reasonable timetable and to engage in an appropriate consultative process with faculty. Several other resolutions were passed, including (1) advocating for a common sense approach to the assessment process; (2) advocating for greater faculty representation on the Provost's Advisory Council on General Education; (3) establishing a new Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Scholarship and Creative Activities; (4) encouraging international programs; (5) endorsing faculty access to technological resources; (6) endorsing the diversity report and extending the committee's charge for one year; (7) encouraging greater exposure and utilization of faculty in distinguished ranks.

Central Council (A. Gridley): E. Kallin, next year's Vice President of Central Council, reported for A. Gridley. He announced the results of the elections for Student Association Executive Board positions: President, Nicole Duxbury; Director of Inter-residence Affairs, Brock Buffum; Director of Business Affairs, Elizabeth Kurian; Director of Public Relations, Sarah Monnet; Director of Academic Affairs, Janet Welles; Director of Student Affairs, Runa Rajagopal.

Reports of the Standing Committees

Undergraduate Curriculum (T. Bazzett): On behalf of UCC, T. Bazzett moved the following proposals for Second Reading. J. Bushnell seconded each proposal. Discussion and votes are indicated in italics after each proposal.

Second Readings:

School of Business Revision of Major: Accounting - Add Mgmt 331 & Mgmt 390 and delete Csci 104 & 300-level Accounting elective (pp. 821-822), passed unanimously. Interdisciplinary Revision of Minor: International Relations - Addition and deletion of courses (pp. 823-824), passed unanimously. Honors Program New Course: INTR 393 Honors Thesis in International Relations (pp. 825-826), passed unanimously. Interdisciplinary New Course: INTD 120 Urban Field Experience (pp. 827-828), passed unanimously.

Program Revision: Urban Studies - Add INTD 120 as elective (p. 828), passed unanimously.

Philosophy Course Revisions: M/ PHIL 202 World Religions & Contemporary Issues: Revised from PHIL 118 M/Comparative Religion and cross-listed as PLSC 202 (pp. 829-833), passed unanimously. Art History: The bundled proposal for course revisions, new courses, revision of the minor, and revision of the major in Art History passed unanimously, with the following included:

Course Revisions: [Courses listed by proposed new titles]

ARTH 201 Ancient to Byzantine Art: Religion & Philosophy (3000-c.600 BC) (p. 834)

ARTH 202 Crusaders, Saints and Sinners: Art and Spirituality in Medieval Europe (500-1400) (p. 835)

ARTH 203 Renaissance Europe: Rebirth of Classical Culture (1300-1480) (p. 836)

Number, title and description change from ARTH 382 Northern Renaissance to ARTH 213 High Renaissance and Mannerism in Europe (1480-1600) (p. 837)

ARTH 284 Asian Art: The Spiritual Traditions of India, China, and Japan (p. 838)

ARTH 278 F/ Nineteenth Century European Art from the French Revolution to the Post-Impressionists: The Spectacle of Modernism (p. 839)

ARTH 287 F/Avant-Garde Modernism (1900-1950): Art on the Edge (p. 840)

ARTH 300 Major Artists and Issues (subtitle in Art History) (p. 841)

ARTH 384 The Age of Rembrandt: Baroque Art in Italy, Spain, France, and The Netherlands (1600-1750) (p. 842)

ARTH 387 Art History Seminar: Methods & Theory (p. 843)

New Course: ARTH 282 From Spain to the Americas: Hispanic Art and Culture (1400-Contemporary) (pp. 844-847).

New Course: ARTH 305 Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary in Italian and Northern Renaissance Art (pp. 848-851).

Revision of Minor: Changes in requirements (p. 852).
Revision of Major: Changes in requirements (pp. 853-854).

Art Studio

New Course: ARTS 387 Senior Studio Seminar (pp. 855-860), passed unanimously.

Revision of Major: Add ARTS 387 as requirement (pp. 861-862), passed unanimously.

Fine Arts Core: The following proposals for F/ core credit were passed unanimously:

ARTS 205 Calligraphy (p. 863)

ARTS 225 Watercolor I (p. 863)

MUSC 222 Stage Musicals (p. 863)

THEA 204 Asian Theater Survey (p. 863)

T. Bazzett once again expressed thanks to the UCC members for their work this semester.

Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review (B. Gohlman): On behalf of the Policy Committee, B. Gohlman moved the following for Second Reading:

Second Reading:


A standard of proficiency in foreign language at Geneseo shall be defined minimally as:

Proficiency through second semester (102), college level of a single language;
Completion of four units (level IV) of NYS high school foreign language or its out-of-state equivalent;
Other appropriate performance- or competence-based equivalency as approved by the Foreign Language Dept. or other appropriate body.

(See proposal p. 566 and discussion pp. 588-589, 812-816, 875-876.)

J. Bushnell seconded the motion. T. Greenfield offered an amendment based on newly obtained information. He noted that the rationale for presenting the original foreign language proposal was to ensure compliance with the new General Education requirements from the Board of Trustees (BOT). Recently (April 14), the advisory committee clarified the requirements by stating that the mere completion of high school units was insufficient unless the policy included a minimum score of 85 on the Regents' exam. In light of this clarification, T. Greenfield moved to amend the policy proposal to add to the second clause of the proposal the words, "and a score of 85 or higher on the New York Regents' Foreign Language exam". J. Bushnell seconded the motion. B. Glass called for discussion.

E. Wallace asked whether the Regents' exam in question was the Level B exam. P. Seaver explained that there are not multiple levels. The Regents' exam is "Checkpoint B" and is administered at the end of the sophomore year in high school. Provost Dixon added that the Advisory Committee's intention was to set as a minimum level a grade of 85 or higher at Checkpoint B, or an equivalent placement examination for out-of-state students (as noted in the third clause of the proposed policy). R. McEwen referred to the April 14th update of the Review of General Education Programs issued by the Provost's Advisory Committee on General Education, which listed among its Learning Outcomes a goal that students will achieve basic proficiency in the understanding and use of a foreign language, as well as knowledge of the specific cultures associated with the language. R. McEwen quoted a statement from this report that "It is expected and desired that many if not most campus general education programs will exceed the minimum requirements" established by the learning outcome statements. R. McEwen emphasized that a high school sophomore level of competency or proficiency cannot fulfill the SUNY mission to develop in students an awareness of aesthetic richness and cultural diversity, nor can it fulfill the college goal of being a premier liberal arts college. It is only a minimal requirement.

B. Glass asked for further discussion of the amendment. O. Nicodemi asked whether the article "the" before "New York Regents' Foreign Language Exam" was confusing, and specifically whether there was only one such test. B. Dixon responded that including the words "Checkpoint B" would be clearer. B. Dixon added that it was confusing whether a score of 85 at Checkpoint B was equivalent to finishing 102. P. Seaver acknowledged this equivalence, but added that students usually take the Regents' exam two to three years before entering college and they often lose much in the interim. One solution might be to have all students take the department's placement exams. B. Glass asked whether the words "Checkpoint B" should be moved for addition to the amendment. B. Dixon suggested that the words could be considered an editorial change. T. Greenfield and J. Bushnell (original mover and seconder) accepted the change. The amendment to the proposal was approved with 68 in favor, 3 against, and 2 abstentions.

Discussion returned to the amended motion. C. Easton, guest of the Senate, spoke against the motion of requiring study through FL 102 (or equivalent) as an indication of proficiency in a foreign language. She noted three concerns.

  1. Defining proficiency. (See p. 885 of the Bulletin) "Proficiency" may be defined by distinguishing between first and second year college-level FL study. First year FL courses can be characterized as "foundation and practice" courses, in which students are taught how to learn a language, grammatical structures, vocabulary, idioms, and basic cultural practices. Second year FL courses can be characterized as "application" courses, in which students read, write, and create within a language and study secondary subject matter. "Proficiency" must be met minimally with some experience of "application" in the second year.
  2. Resources. One approach to the question of resources for a new FL requirement is to presume that a higher level of coursework set for the requirement will necessitate more sections. Another way of looking at the problem suggests there will be very little difference in the number of sections of FL courses needed whether the requirement is set at 102 or at a one-course experience at the 200-level. Current information about students satisfying FL requirements comes from students who need 102 for certification in Education. Only students who do not meet equivalency criteria must currently take courses. If we set the bar higher, we should not presume that students who currently enroll in 102 will need both 102 and a second year course. Many students who self-advise or who follow summer orientation advisors' directions enroll in 102 because a more challenging course is not required. In other words, students regularly under-challenge themselves. By raising the requirement to (at minimum) one course at the 200-level, we will in fact encourage students to work up to their potential, rather than reviewing content they have already covered in high school. A more important approach to the question of resources concerns how we use our current resources. These resources are our colleagues: intelligent, experienced scholars who have a great deal to contribute to the College. By confining a proficiency requirement to satisfaction of FL 102, however, we strangle our resources. At the 200-level or "application" level of proficiency, FL teachers can create specialized courses for target audiences, such as Business students, Education students, or Political Science students. At the "application" level, students can study the cultures of numerous countries in sufficient depth to satisfy a "multicultural" graduation requirement, while also learning to think outside of their own language and culture. Asking students to study at the 200-, application level is not an attempt to absorb new lines and undercut other programs. It is instead a matter of academic integrity, which should not require many more resources than asking them to study through the 102 level. In the Gen Ed Committee we were wrong to confine ourselves to the traditional 201-202 sequence, which does an excellent job preparing students for work at the 300 level, where they truly begin to function in a language. The FL faculty ask for an opportunity to enrich the curriculum with new, specialized courses at the 200 or "application" level that will do a great deal to complement many of the major programs in which students are enrolled.
  3. High School and Testing Equivalencies. The original motion sent to the College Senate permitted students to place out of the FL requirement if they completed high school FL study through at least level 4. This proposal followed the standard practice of equating two years of high school study with one year of college study. The substitute motion, which is now under consideration, proposes extending the current SOE requirement and equivalencies to the entire college by requiring through college level 102 or high school level 4 plus an 85 on the Regents' exam. One motivation for the change is the very real concern that students who study foreign language for four years in high school do not always have the equivalent experience of two years of college study. Indeed, the FL department's survey of Spanish language students in Fall, 1999, revealed that of 95 students who took four years of high school Spanish and the Geneseo placement exam, none placed into third year Spanish, and only 78% placed into second year study (201 or 202). These figures suggest inadequate high school preparation. All our faculty have legitimate concerns that equating this high school preparation with two years of college study perpetuates the inadequacies of high school foreign language study. For practical reasons it is in Geneseo's interest at the current time to accept four years of high school study -- plus a score of at least 85 on the Regents' -- as a waiver of a college foreign language requirement. But we should not lower the bar of how we will define proficiency simply because we are alarmed at high school preparation. First, I suggest that we understand the context of underachievement on placement exams taken without preparation and little sleep during freshman summer orientation. These scores may not be an adequate assessment of student abilities. Second, we must remember that more than half of the 211 students placed into Spanish language courses last fall either self-advised or followed orientation advisors' instruction and did not take the placement exam. Most of these under-place themselves and avoid or postpone the challenge of a course at the "application" level. Third, we must acknowledge that we have a responsibility toward all our students, including those from less competitive high schools, who do not have an opportunity to take a fourth year of language or who are inadequately taught. This responsibility connects Geneseo to the community, extending our resources and assisting needy high schools with distant learning or summer preparation courses. By holding Geneseo's standards higher, we challenge high schools to prepare their students better. We must stand behind that challenge by sharing knowledge and resources, offering opportunities for faculty development to local high school teachers and making it clear to applicants to Geneseo that we will teach with an expectation throughout our curriculum that we have linguistically-informed students. Given the College's publicly stated commitment to diversity, no one on this campus wants to be perceived to be perpetuating the myth of the ugly American, the self-centered lingua-phobe who presumes everyone else will accommodate him. By defining "foreign language proficiency" as instruction through FL 102, we do precisely that. I think we can do better.
B. Joshi offered the following comments: I am pleased to see the inclusion of a minimum acceptable score on the NYS Regents' FL examination as a part of our policy. To borrow a famous phrase, that is the right and proper thing to do. According to the approximate equivalencies between years of study in high school and courses offered at Geneseo as used by our FL department, it appears to me that the first two clauses in the proposal are not at all equivalent. A score of 85 or higher in NYS Regents' FL examination should bring students up to a level slightly higher than our 102 level FL courses. So, three years of high school FL training and a score of at least 85 in the NYS Regents FL exam should be enough to meet our requirement. To see one example of the flaw in the proposal as it stands now, imagine a situation in which an incoming student has only three units of high school FL with a Regents score or 85 or higher. Are we going to ask this student to take additional College level FL courses? If the answer is yes, how could we justify it? If the answer is no, then why mandate that extra unit of high school FL? There is a simple answer to this riddle. However, that will require another amendment to the proposal at hand.

P. Seaver questioned whether an 85+ on the Regents' is equivalent to "above 102." The material in 102 and 103 is what is covered on the Regents' exam. She asked where B. Joshi's information came from, and he referred to her recent email that stated that the 201-level is equivalent to three years of high school study. P. Seaver noted that students can earn 1 credit in middle school, and 3 credits by the end of the sophomore year. B. Glass asked whether a score of 85+ on the Regents’ exam is equivalent to FL 102. P. Seaver replied that it was. B. Joshi reiterated that P. Seaver’s email on FacTalk indicated that 2 or 3 years in high school was equivalent to 201 Intermediate I. B. Evans noted that this "rule of thumb" was used by the department as an attempt to accommodate the needs of students with different backgrounds. B. Glass asked whether a motion was being made to amend the proposal; B. Joshi replied that he would do so if there were interest among other Senators.

R. Herzman commented that many subject areas are taken seriously here at Geneseo, but that foreign languages are not. The biggest gap in our claim to be a premier liberal arts institution is in the foreign language requirement, especially given the importance of FL for liberal arts education and multicultural goals. He supported efforts to make the requirement serious – to at least the 200-level – and he encouraged an effort to find creative solutions to resource issues.

T. Greenfield, in response to remarks by C. Easton, agreed that "resources" are not simply a matter of "seats" in some number of sections. However, he disagreed that moving to a 200-level requirement would not change the number of seats required. He emphasized that we do not know what changes would be necessary and that we will have to work out those numbers. He also noted that the Gen Ed committee, in deciding on the original proposal for coursework through 202, had consulted with the president, who indicated that staffing needs could be covered without disruption to other programs.

J. Morse described the reactions of her daughter-in-law, a multilingual professor of English in Buffalo, who is surprised that Americans in general are illiterate in other languages.

R. McEwen referred to comments made by T. Greenfield at a previous Senate meeting, which suggested that adding 4 to 5 new lines would "double the faculty" of the FL department. She noted that the current faculty of 8 members would not in fact be doubled.

O. Nicodemi suggested that today’s action by Senate should not in any way be considered an effort to define "proficiency." Instead, the Senate will be responding to the BOT mandate. She emphasized that she would love to see a creative program such as other Senators have described, but that we need more time to plan such a program and interface it with existing programs and core. Today’s decision will represent an emergency measure, not a definition of proficiency. She suggested that we get on with the proposal and begin planning for a creative long-term solution.

H. Waddy moved to amend the proposal based on C. Easton’s suggestions for a creative approach. Specifically, she moved to change the requirement in the first clause from "second semester (102)" to "third semester (201)". J. Bushnell seconded the motion.

K. Fletcher spoke against the amendment. Although he acknowledged that the English faculty were convincing in expressing the need for a good program, he agreed with O. Nicodemi that planning was needed. He also expressed concern about the potential impact on flexibility for students. S. Kirsh remarked that the General Education requirements were not meant to "cure all of society’s ills" – but instead to expose students to variety across a range of subject areas. He argued that FL 102 meets this goal. K. Davies suggested that if 101-102 is equivalent to high school levels, we need to take that "exposure" further. B. Goeckel noted that a standard for high quality education did not necessarily mean an effort to "cure all ills." However, he suggested that resources are a real issue, for which the use of adjunct faculty may be helpful. Specifically, adjunct faculty could cover at least some sections of 100-level FL courses, freeing up the full-time professors in FL to focus on creative uses of the 200-level courses. Although we are in fact responding to the BOT mandate, there is no reason to propose an inadequate program. R. McEwen pointed out that much consideration and planning went into the original proposal requiring 201 and 202. She suggested that the Senate changes to the original proposal were based on less information and planning.

R. Vasiliev asked whether a score of 85 on the Regents’ was equivalent to FL 102. She noted that changing the proposal to 201 would make clause 1 and 2 of the proposal inconsistent. C. Easton responded that four high school units are considered equivalent to 202. R. Vasiliev asked whether that means that all of clause 2 is equivalent to 202. B. Glass clarified that high school level 4 is equivalent to FL 202, but an 85+ on the Regents’ is equivalent to FL 102. T. Greenfield noted that whether or not the two parts of clause 2 are equivalent, anyone who meets BOTH parts meets our FL requirement.

S. Iyer spoke against the amendment, suggesting that we should move more slowly in initiating a foreign language requirement. She suggested that we start with 102 as the minimum requirement. Later, after further study of impact and the needs of entering students, we can make the requirement more stringent. She also emphasized that this debate was not a "Humanities vs. Non-Humanities" debate. We can also go with three units of high school and 102, then later consider a more meaningful requirement.

B. Brennan called the question, and R. Vasiliev seconded. The motion to call the question passed by two-thirds, with 52 for, 17 against, and no abstentions. The vote on the amendment resulted in a tie, with 33 for, 33 against, and 5 abstentions. B. Glass then broke the tie by voting in favor, and the amendment passed, with the first clause of the proposal now reading "through third semester (201)."

B. Glass called for discussion to return to the main motion as amended. S. Iyer called the question and J. Bushnell seconded. The motion to call the question passed by two-thirds, with 48 in favor, 16 against, and 5 abstentions. P. Schact requested ballots for the vote on the proposal. The amended proposal passed, with 49 in favor, 25 against, and 3 abstentions. The final version, as passed, was as follows:

A standard of proficiency in foreign language at Geneseo shall be defined minimally as:

Proficiency through third semester (201), college level of a single language;
Completion of four units (level IV) of NYS high school foreign language or its out-of-state equivalent, AND a score of 85 or higher on the New York Regents' Foreign Language exam (Checkpoint B);
Other appropriate performance- or competence-based equivalency as approved by the Foreign Language Dept. or other appropriate body.

 Graduate Academic Affairs (J. Bushnell): J. Bushnell thanked committee members for their work this year.

Faculty Affairs Committee (N. Schiavetti): On behalf of FAC, N. Schiavetti presented the following two motions for second reading:

Second Readings

Motion #1: The College Senate shall renew the present SOFI process for one (1) year using the same form while next year's Faculty Affairs Committee continues to evaluate the SOFI form. (See Bulletin pp. 658 and 784)

J. Bushnell seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The motion passed with one against, no abstentions, and the remainder in favor.

Motion #2: The present SOFI form shall include in the top section of the front page the following statement: (See Bulletin pp. 658 and 785)

"Numerical ratings and comments from the SOFI forms provide important feedback for: ** renewal, continuing appointment, and promotion decisions concerning
the instructor
** improvement of the instructor's teaching effectiveness

** student course choices

NB: Instructors do not receive the SOFI numerical ratings or comments until AFTER they turn in the final grades for the course." J. Bushnell seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The motion passed with 1 against, 1 abstention, and the remainder in favor.

Student Affairs (E. Crosby): No report.

Unfinished Business


New Business

B. Glass offered profuse thanks to the members of the Executive Committee, the Committee Chairs, and the Senate Secretary for their work throughout the year. She noted that A. Gridley is finishing her second year as Central Council representative to Senate and the Executive Committee, and she thanked her for her dedicated work. B. Glass also thanked the Senate work-study students Anna Borschevskaya and Kelley Gangemi for their dependability and assistance. She passed the ceremonial gavel to the 2000-2001 Senate Chair, C. Leary.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:30.

Respectfully submitted,

Joan C. Ballard
Secretary of the College Senate