Minutes of the College Senate Meeting
November 6, 2012
Present: J. Aimers, J. Allen, P. Barber, M. Board, B. Bonfiglio, M. Boquard, S. Bosch, T. Bowersox, A. Carroll, R. Coloccia, C. Dahl, D. Ernst, D. Farthing, K. Fletcher, E. Gamello, L. Gao, C. Geiger, D. Granger, D. Greenberg, C. Haddad, J. Hannie, B. Harrison, G. Hartvigsen, A. Heap, E. Joyce, R. Kahrs, C. Kreutter, J. Lasody, M.H. Lima, M. Liwanag, C. Long, J. Lovett, D. Mackenzie, G. Marcus, K.J. Matthews, V. Markowski, C. Mellow, J. Miller, J. Milroy, M. Mooney, J. Morgan, J. Okada, J. Over, P. Pacheco, D. Repinski, S. Salmon, D. Scott, J. Shapiro, D. Showers (Chair), M. Stolee, A. Tajima, G. Towsley, R. Vasiliev, M. Volpe- McDermott, A. Yankay
Call to Order
Chair Showers called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM.
I. Agenda accepted without objection
II. Minutes of October 16, 2012 accepted without objection
III. Senate Reports
President’s Report: President C. Dahl
· Discussed commission of sustainability and have received charter for the year, and they are preparing their reports. They are working very hard on issues such as sustainability education and a variety of planning and publicity. Christy Hanub (Biology) and Darlene Necaster (Facilities, Finance and Administration) are on this.
· Diversity administration - Cathy Mapes (history) and Tracy Paradis (library). This is available on the diversity webpage and the president’s webpage. Charge will also be available on the web page. Working on putting together a diversity plan in connection with the strategic planning group looking at international students and education and mentoring issues. Looking at further development of publicity for Real World Geneseo - in the mission of diversity. They would love to have willing members. I will be sending something to department secretaries. Please feel free to volunteer.
· Report the SUNY 2020 proposal discussed last time is going forward and doing vertical leg work. Vice President Milroy has the paper copy. Email Provost or Jim Milroy and they will send the entire document.
· We were spared most of the effects of the superstorm Sandy. New Jersey was hit very badly, and in the city, and portions of Brooklyn, Queens, Redwood, and Long Island. We have sent out a college notice to alumni and parents expressing concerns and things will be offered on this campus (opportunities) to assist and serve down there. Similar notice will be going out to students as well. Notice to staff will go out as opportunities are more clear. This may come out tomorrow in an email. The students want to be involved. They are talking to Tom Matthews.
o It would be useful to have a workshop for volunteers to one or more sites in the week before classes begin Jan 6 -13.
o On the model of Livingston Cares and hurricane Katrina - we will be going on a spring trip and restoration to NYC/NJ area. 40% of the students come from the affected areas. We will be asking students if they know of families who might have been extremely affected and holding a meeting for students working and volunteering. We just hope that we don’t cause more trouble than help J
o Through Livingston Cares we will have a designated hurricane relief, or through the Geneseo Foundation.
· Meg Stolee (History) - Recently the college has announced the new word mark (yes)
o Could you compare and tell us the cost of the research and implementation?
o President - We have had the same word mark since I got here. It is a normal process to redesign. This seemed appropriate to do. We engaged a firm of consultants - $65,000 divided by 26 is $2, 500 a year. The cost of implementing is very small. We are not going to do it all at once. Things get changed on the website for free. Everyone can use up the old stationary that we have accumulated. The intention of this process, which was participatory, used focus groups, advisory committees - the intuition was to present the college visually as it is today than as it was in 1986. If you look at the word mark and look at the other leading liberal arts colleges, you’ll see that the new word mark is very much in keeping visually.
o What was this money spent on?
o President - This is the typical cost of a firm that is usually spent. This was a contract that was reviewed by 100s of people that provided advice and guidance. This is the cost of doing business.
Provost’s report: Provost C. Long
· I’m back from a few days at Denver and they have some exciting things going on. They have been doing work with Scholarly Communication - looking at peer review for digital scholars, shared academics, spring events that we can be a part of virtually. I will be in NYC with the SUNY system on a conference on systemness. We will be in early December putting out applications for ambassadors for this summer. Be thinking about students who would be good candidates. Think about proposals, due in early February.
· I want to present a revised form H for chairs and departmental personnel committees for contract renewal and promotion. It has taken 8 years to change this form. Jim Beers, James McLean and James McAllen have been a part of this. There have been a lot of faculty in the conversation. The form, and the material for the intro - instructions to fill out the form and appendixes for what types of evidence to present. I need to do some working with the language with which will be done with the faculty affairs committee.
o College personal committee - I wanted them to have a look at the form. Those conversations focused on the major changes in the revised form (10 point scale in the subset). All those numbers disappeared and went to a yes/no. Many of the committee thought it wouldn’t be as helpful to them in the subsets. They were interested in having a little more definition to the response. I listened to the conversation and talked with president Dahl.
o There are a few changes:
o Under the performance ratings -- there is a range or evaluative words
o Minor change - in the last section - evaluation of contributions to service - the first one was originally disciplinary.
o Steve Derne (Sociology) - There are two main concerns - and I’m not sure that those are addressing this. 1) The faculty were not getting guidance whether they were meeting the standards I had to ask my chair what the numbers meant. I’m concerned the department will be concerned with yes/no. The differential use of the numbers across different departments. 2) There is not sufficient guidance on what to do about what the evaluation actually was. Both of those two things - I‘m not sure that this actually solves this problem. I hope that you think about these problems. We didn’t get the input from the Provost and the President that we needed. This is coming so late in a length of conversations.
· Provost: We have sometimes too many boxes and the conversation doesn’t always come across. (First point) I agree that we need to give good feedback; I also agree that the 10 point scale didn’t actually do that.
o Steve Derne - No one is just acceptable or model and this is
o In there were some numbers (50%) teaching - are those now
out? (They are still there) I’m not seeing them there and I thought that this would be a good thing. Some of us are stronger than others without that.
· Provost: We haven’t hanged the policy framework. It has been an ongoing conversation but I think that this is an important time to refresh this conversation. We need to be thoughtful in our responses. There are so many pressures from many directions and it is important that we be good stewards of the profession and thinking of the roles of faculty. We need to think about the kind of faculty culture we want to develop. We need student response and staff response and working hard to identify the public values that come out of a strong faculty culture.
· President - response - I think that Steve is right about the college’s admin failure to follow up on recommendations of admin process. I’m glad we are moving on this in a productive way with the leadership of Provost Long. This is a discussion about our responsibilities to our colleagues. 80% of our faculty are tenure track.
o Jan Lovett (Biology) - one of the things were it looks brief (in giving commentary) that was where the justification was and if we remember a couple years before, we had a document where we were supposed to have each dept. list the criteria for the different stages of promotion that was agreed upon with the last Provost and that was supposed to fit with this document to the personal committee.
· Provost - all of that has happened. Departments have presented their guidelines; they live in a website and they have used them for the last two years.
o Meg Stolee - How much variation in the specificity where
they layout their specifications?
· Provost - There is not huge disparity; there are some depending on the discipline. The problem has not been entirely solved. They are talking about what is most important for their discipline.
Chair: Dennis Showers
· I convened what I call a governance council - commmitees in college, faculty, and presidential commissions. We talked about a way we might better coordinate the governance group. Standardizing governance information. They will know how to get the information because it will be the same way you get information for other committees. I have met with a rep for CIT - and to make a shell and a link to a second page that will have other advisory bodies. We will have a menu with a master governance calendar so they know exactly where to go. This will become governance central. Each body will have a template with standard presentation with meeting schedule, the current roster (these are constantly changing) and we have solved this problem by having the chair being the roster manager. This allows the bodies themselves to manage the roster. Standard place for committees and reports.
· The second thing: group of faculty to talk about support and evaluation of teaching. The groups invited are all distinguished teaching, recent excellence award winners, and others that are interested to form a steering committee to frame a discussion on November 28th. The issue was we’ve spent so much focus on changing the student evaluation form to make it do what it needs to do - where it might not be able to do that. We would like to talk about - when a faculty member goes up for tenure - what should be presented to make the decision? We will reverse engineer that and find out what we need, and then create a support system for a body of evidence - how do we evaluate that evidence? We will try to get people together after Thanksgiving. We would like to get to a more sophisticated place to learn how to get better numbers on the SOFI
· University awards committee - Thinking about chancellor’s awards in early career - if you have any thoughts - we are in discussion. What do we do if someone wins an award in the 4th year and they go up for tenure - how does this work?
o A chancellors award for excellence in governance - awarded to a campus rather than an individual
o Kurt Fletcher (Physics) Who maintains the websites? Who puts the records on after every meeting?
o Chair: There is a timeframe. Shared Governance - it might be advantageous to include a link to student association. The SOFI emerged from a student member to evaluate faculty. If this is to be done, we will engage it. This went to the CIE’s, then a student evaluation of instruction. One senator rose “this is the students’ opinion about instruction”. This is not to replace current discussion about SOFI - this is we’ve spent so much time on getting a SOFI instruction - we haven’t thought about other things that we can do. We need to get beyond that.
o Kurt Fletcher: what is the relationship between the website and the college bulletin?
o Chair: That is part of a large discussion. Would it be redundant? Could we take the website and easily pull everything together to send it out. One of the issues in communication - it is so easy to say - we need more communication - let’s send it out. Giving them access to what they need to know and making it so they know how to get it - that is more important.
o Q (Steve #LastName): It is important to make it searchable - we need to have CIT work on ways to make this searchable. The thing about teaching - this should help ongoing faculty figuring out how to improve the teachers
o Dennis - David Parfitt is co-chairing the committee to integrate the functionality.
Vice Chair: Jan Lovett
· no report
Past Chair: David Granger
· no report
Secretary: Cheryl Kreutter
· no report
Treasurer: Paul Pacheco
· We will be soliciting contributions College Senate next month.
University Faculty Senate –
· Look at the written report. Resource allocation tool - SUNY Central was devising a tool for reallocation, we discussed voting on a resolution on capping how much a certain campus would lose. I spoke against this. Geneseo would lose more money if it was transferred to university centers. The core mission of SUNY is to educate students. We should not favor a cut. We talked about mobility issues with Community Colleges - students being unprepared. We are concerned - what are we supposed to do - we must accept these students and accept what they received (credits). There is a loophole - if students come in from a CC and they are weak, we can appeal to not take students from that school.
o Dennis - campus governance leaders were also concerned with reallocation
· The SOFI task force meets November 12 - if you have people with suggestions, email email@example.com
· The senate student caucus passed
· Thank you for the later construction time - we encourage that this is in place
· Recommend medical amnesty by the college senate
· We are trying to get everyone to the polls by 9 pm
o Steve Derne: Does amnesty refer to student affairs (no). It would come to executive committee
o Chair: It is really smart to engage the alumni
UG Curriculum Committee: Meg Stolee
· UCC moves the first reading of the new courses ARTH 302, ENGL 202, MATH 341. Motion carried. Move first reading of revised courses –
o Motion carries.
· Moves the first reading of course deletion:
o Motion carries
· First reading - program revisions –
o Motion carries
· UG Committee: Every course has a replacement at the 200 level
o Motion carries
· Next meeting is November 13 at 4pm
UG Policies Committee meeting November 13 at 4pm - Dennis is convening the meeting
Graduate Curricular - no report
Student affairs - no report
Faculty Affairs - next meeting November 13
Old business - no
New business - no
Announcements - no
Meeting adjourned 5:02 PM
Cheryl A. Kreutter, College Senate Secretary
William Jones III, Milne Library