College Senate Bulletin

Pages 49-60
19 Oct. 2001

Contents
Page Topic
49 Contents
Announcements:
50 Fall 2001 College Senate and Senate Committee MeetingSchedule
50 Senate Bulletin Mailing List
50 Fall Elections
Minutes:

50 All-College Meeting, Oct. 16, 2001
51 College Senate Meeting, Oct. 16, 2001


Correspondence: Janice A. Lovett,Department of Biology,

Bailey 210; e-mail: lovett@geneseo.edu; phone:245-5413
Announcements:


Fall 2001 College Senate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule
October 23 Executive CommitteeMeeting
Undergraduate Curriculum 4PM Sturges 113
Student Affairs 4PM Bailey 211
October 30 Undergraduate Curriculum 4PM Sturges 113
Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review 4PMWelles 111
Graduate Academic Affairs
November 6 College Senate Meeting
November 20 Executive Committee Meeting
December 4 College Senate Meeting

Senate Bulletin Mailing List
Any member of the College Community may receive an individual copy of the College Senate Bulletin. If you would like to receivea copy please send your name as you would like it to appear onthe mailing label and your campus address to the Senate Chair,Janice Lovett, lovett@geneseo.edu or 210 Bailey.

Fall Elections
Ballots and PIN numbers for the fall elections willbe mailed to all of the Teaching Faculty on October 29. Electronicvotes will be tallied until noon on November 9, 2001.
Minutes:
Minutes of the All-College Meeting

16 October 20014PM
Newton 204

Call to Order: Chair J. Lovett called the All-College Meetingto order at 4PM.

Nomination Committee Report: Chair Lovett reportedon behalf of Nomination Committee Chair J. Allen. To begin with,she presented the nominees for Faculty Personnel Committee:

Becky Glass, Sociology
Rosanne Hartman, Communication
Donald Marozas, School of Education
Margaret Matlin, Psychology
David Meisel, Physics
Robert O'Donnell, Biology
D. Jeffrey Over, Geological Sciences
Hilda Pato, Foreign Languages
Daniel Strang, Business

The three newly elected members will join Gary Towsley,Laura Doan, David Geiger and William Gohlman on the Faculty PersonnelCommittee.

In accordance with constitution by-laws, the list could not beamended from the floor.

Next, Lovett presented the nominees for the Committee on Nominations:

Nader Asgary, Business
Anne Eisenberg, Sociology
Michael Lynch, Psychology
Anthony Macula, Mathematics
Duane McPherson, Biology
Hilda Pato, Foreign Languages
Edward Pogozelski, Physics
David Robertson, Geography
Kathryn Rommel-Esham, School of Education
Elias Savellos, Philosophy
Barbara Welker, Anthropology

Since this list could be amended from the floor, Lovettsolicited additional nominations. Hearing none, she moved to closenominations. There was no further discussion.

Lovett then moved that the Senate accept the two slates of candidatesas they stood. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously

These lists will be published in next Friday’s Senate Bulletin.Ballots will be sent by mail, and voting will be conducted througha designated website.

Adjournment: Chair Lovett adjourned the All-CollegeMeeting at 4.05PM.

Minutes of the College Senate Meeting

16 October 20014PM
Newton 204

Present: D. Anderson; J. Ballard; T. Bassett; T. Book;S. Brainard; J. Bushnell; M. Chang; W. Cook; F.K. Cylke; G. Dingeldein;B. Dixon; G. Drake; M. Dunn; K. Farrell; C. Faulkner; B. Fearn;S. Flynn; C. Freeman; W. Gohlman; D. Granger; T. Greenfield; A.Gu; K. Hannam; A. Happ; R. Hartman; A. Hatton; D. Hill; T. Hon;H. Hoops; H. Howe; D. Johnson; J. Jungbluth; A. Kline; C. Leary;K. Levison; J. Lieberman; M. Lima; J. Liu; J. Lovett; K. Mapes;R. McEwen; J. Mclean; D. McPherson; D. Metz; J. F. Morse; J. Mounts;K. O’Gara; P. Pacheco; M. Putman; J. Putorti; K. Rank;J. Remy; S. Salmon; P. Schacht; A. Sheldon; J. Sieffert; R. Spear;A. Stanley, M. Stolee; L. Taczak; C. Tang; G. Towsley; R. Vasiliev;A. Weibel; C. Whalen; C. Wixson; J. Zook

Guests: S. Bailey, J. Boiani, T. Buggie-Hunt, K. Fletcher,S. Frish, D. Gordon, G. Hartvigsen, R. Johnston, K. Kallio, S.Kirsh, R. Pretzer, C. Pruszynski, E. Rivenburgh, G. Root, B. Simon,G. Stelzig, M. Teres, K. Trainor, J. Williams, L. Wrubel, M. Zuckerman

Call to Order: College Senate Chair Lovett called the meetingto order at 4.05 PM

Adoption of Agenda: The agenda was adopted unanimouslywithout corrections.

Approval of the Minutes of thePrevious Meetings: The minutes of the College Senate Meetingof 18 September 2001 (College Senate Bulletin 3, pp. 24-30) wereapproved unanimously.
Senate Reports

President’s Report

President Dahl yielded his customary report time toVice-President for Administration K. Levison, who presented thestate of the College Budget. Levison prefaced his remarks by pointingout that Geneseo’s budget is actually composed of a seriesof different funds.

The components of the budget include the following:

State Purpose Budget—appropriated taxdollars and local revenues. These include tuition and fees. TheState Purpose monies are used for

1. The Base Budget—the recurring financialoperations of the College—for negotiated salary increases,inflation, etc.
2. One-Time Allocations—yearly cash allocationsfrom SUNY; these are not carried over to the next base budget.


IFR (Income Fund Reimbursement) Operations—income-producingenterprise funds—for instance, Summer Session, SUTRA (StateUniversity Tuition Revenue Account), the Health Center, intercollegiateactivities, etc.

DIFR (Dormitory Income Fund Reimbursable) Operations—by order of the SUNY Trustees, these funds collected from roomfees are not interchangeable with other funds on campus.

IPEDS Reportable Budget—the total operating budgetof $80 million, which includes items not included in the budgetcomponents above but that are attributed to our budget by StateUniversity Plaza (formerly SUNY Central) and reported to the FederalGovernment.


Levison discussed each of these components in turn.

Base Budget, Part One: State Purpose Budget: The total of “Personal Service Regular”(instruction and non-instruction-based employees), “Temp Service” (instruction and non-instruction based),salary increases for both of these Services, library acquisitions,utilities, and other supplies and expenses came to $33,933,500last year. Of this revenue, the state contributed 41% ($14,220,600)through tax dollars, tuition, fees, and other campus revenues.Non-state revenue sources contributed $19,712,900, or 58%. Thisbudget represented an increase from 2000-2001 of $2,195,400, or6.9%.

Of this additional $2,195,400 million, $1,977,700 must be usedfor contracted salary increases, while $239,700 is scheduled forutilities.


Base Budget, Part Two: One-Time Allocations: These amountsare appropriated by State University Plaza as lump sums to campuses.They include academic equipment replacement; EOP; estimated researchinitiatives; programs for students with disabilities; SCAP (StudentComputer Access Progress); tuition reimbursements; Empire Statescholarships; Critic Teacher waivers; Graduate Minority Fellowships;and SUSTA, totaling $34,707,300. Through tax dollars, the Stateprovides $14,994,400. This brings the total campus base budgetto $34,707,300. In all of this, Levison noted that the College’s revenues still exceed tax dollar support.

IFR (Income Fund Reimbursable) Budget: Thisbudget totals $7,597,000 and includes the following expenses:Summer Sessions; OAP; international student services; Intersessionand Continuing Education; Regular Session “overflow”; technology fee; Health Center; athletics; utilities; telephoneservice; duplicating; facilities rental; construction contracts;HPE facility rental/workout center; administrative o/h recovery;parking registration and traffic fines; prior year campus budgetcommunity allocations; campus discretionary funds; and all othermiscellaneous items. These amounts are paid for by tuition, fees,and charges, as well as net cash balances. Levison noted thatduplicating is currently running in the red, but the point isto be sure that the whole balance budgets, and in fact, thereis a slight positive balance of $16,100. He also stressed thatthe College cannot directly fund State Purpose Expenses from theIFR Budget.

DIFR (Dormitory Income Fund Reimbursable) Budget: Thisbudget includes the following expenses: physical plant; StudentServices; safety and security; general administration; systemadministrative assessments; utilities; telephone and cable; RArent waivers; room scholarships; laundry; debt service; ComputerCenter and ResNet; fringe benefit assessments; and a small amountof miscellaneous expenses. These expenses amount to $9,863,300.Revenue to pay for these expenses comes entirely from non-statesources—chiefly from rental income, in the amount of $10,175,800,leaving a net positive amount of $312,500.

To summarize at this point, the TOTAL CAMPUS OPERATIONSare as follows (expressed in thousands of dollars):
EXPENSES REVENUE
State Non-State Total
State Base Budget 33,933.5 14,220.6 19,712.9 33,933.0
State Additional Allocations 773.8 773.8 0.0 773.8
IFR Activity 7,597.0 0.0 7,613.1 7,613.1
DIFR 9,863.3 0.0 10,175.8 10, 175.8
Sub-Total 52,167.6 14,994.4 37,501.8 52,496.2


Only about $15 million of this $52 million is supported byState tax dollars.

IPEDS Budget: State University Plaza adds expensespayable from other sources to our campus; these include debt serviceon state buildings; fringe benefits; campus auxiliary services(CAS); Geneseo Foundation; Sponsored Research; scholarships andfellowships (State, Federal, and Institutional), which come to$27,978,500. 62% of IPEDS Campus Revenue comes from non-statesources; state sources contribute 38%.


Levison next outlined budget issues for 2001-2002 and the College’s response.

The so-called “bare bones budget” passed by the State Legislature (in light of the still-unresolvedState Budget negotiations) includes a $19.5 million cut for theSystem. The money allocated from the bare bones legislation coverssalary increases (increased enrollment would mean more fundingfor this), but no funding for utilities or inflation, and no newprogram funding.

In response, the Campus Budget Committee prioritized 29 one-timerequests (such as the cost of the Middle States visits, the Libraryrenovations, etc.). President Dahl has funded eighteen of thesefor a total of $533,316. The Budget Committee also prioritized45 requests for $1,984,151 in base funding, though the Presidenthas not yet taken action on base requests. Meanwhile, the BudgetCommittee has asked departments to hold back 1% of their budgetsfor a total of $324,000.

The budget forecast for 2002-03, Levison said, is affectedby the general downturn in the economy and the aftermath of theattack on the World Trade Center. The State projects a shortfallof $3 billion to this year’s budget, and a shortfall of$6 billion for next year.

What this means is that the “Budget Call Letter” issued by the State division of the Budget for next year’s budget will operate at this year’s level. For the University,this means a budget gap of $120 million next year. There can beno requests for negotiated salary increases, utility increases,inflation, etc. The College will approach these projected shortfallsconservatively by reserving the 1% departmental hold-back as ahedge for next year and reviewing hiring in process.

G. Hartvigsen (Biology) asked if the Geneseo Foundation budgetwas close to being balanced, and A. Hatton (Voce President forCollege Advancement) affirmed that it was. L. Crane (Student)inquired about amounts spent on renovation projects. Levison repliedthat building, construction, and major renovations come from theState Construction Fund and also from DIFR’s budget. Occasionally,there are small operations of less than $100,000 that are sometimespaid for out of operating funds on campus.

Levison noted that there are many options open to the Universitynot available to other State agencies. For example, tuition hasnot risen for the past six years. In addition, the Universitywas not given utilities relief last year, so we may be in linefor that if needed. All of this depends, too, on the ultimateFederal help for rebuilding New York City.

Governor Pataki apparently wishes to introduce next year’s budget early—i.e., before Christmas. Since New York Citybusinesses and individuals have been granted an additional ninetydays to file their second quarter tax returns (originally dueon 30 September), the governor’s early budget will onlyhave one-fourth of the revenue budget picture available. By 31March, there will be only two quarters of projected known revenue;this will probably be a very conservative, difficult budget.

R. Simon (Biology) asked if the Science Building constructionwould still be going forward, and Levison said it would. The five-yearcapital plan has been reappropriated, though it has now becomea six-year capital plan.

G. Stelzig (English) asked whether a hiring freeze might occur.Levison said that one of the reasons that we want to hold cashin reserve now is to have time to react; it is very hard to seehow things will turn out.

J. Remy (Student) asked what other approaches exist to meet theUniversity’s Budget gap. Levison reminded the Senate thatno gap exists right at the moment. Some of the budget figuresare adjusted upward for inflation, and somewhere around $80-90million of the “budget gap” involves increasedsalary money; we can “eat” utilities if weneed to. In any event, there will be negotiations between theGovernor, the Legislature, and the SUNY Trustees. Tuition increasesare not the only answer; neither can tuition increases alone fillthe budget gap. Nevertheless, we have to be realistic.

Provost’s Report

Provost B. Dixon presented the draft of the StrategicPlanning Group’s Goals and Objectives. Last spring, 75people participated in six different working groups to developthese objectives, which we as a campus hope to accomplish in 3-5years. Each group came up with 3-6 objectives that they offeredto the Strategic Planning Group. While keeping the spirit of theobjectives, President of the College asked the SPG to prioritizeobjectives. The result was the following working document.
STRATEGIC PLANNING GROUP
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal # 1: Provide everystudent the highest quality education through a rigorous, challengingand active learning experience in close working relationshipswith faculty and staff, that encourages intellectual engagementand personal growth.

Objectives:
1. Make firstyear seminars available to all first year students.
2. Make a capstone experience available to all students intheir final year.
3. Undertake a study of the curriculum, with special emphasison the balance among general education, majors and electives;to make recommendations to insure curricular flexibility, to encouragehabits of intellectual inquiry, and to broaden the study of theliberal arts.
4. Examine the effectiveness of academic advisement and proposechanges that might be needed in order to improve the quality ofacademic advisement.
5. Reduce the student: faculty ratio to 15:1.
6. Expand opportunities for interdisciplinary and integrativeteaching and learning.

Goal # 2: Recruit, support,and foster the development of a diverse community of outstandingstudents, faculty, and staff.

Objectives:
1. Establish a Faculty Center for Excellence in Teachingand Learning.
2. Establish a Student Center for Academic Achievement.
3. Increase the yield of racially and ethnically diversestudents who are admitted to the College.
4. Establish systematic support and rewards to facilitateand recognize staff accomplishments.
5. Establish programmatic links with colleges and universitiesthat enroll larger percentages of racially and ethnically diversestudents than Geneseo
6. Systematically gather quantitative data on faculty andstaff who leave Geneseo and use the data to improve faculty/staffretention and recruitment.

Goal # 3: Enrich thecollegiate experience by strengthening the integration betweencurricular and co-curricular programs.

Objectives:
1. Articulate the college’s expectations for studentinvolvement in developmental activities that facilitate studentsuccess in the first year.
2. Create and distribute a list of co-curricular activitiesthat would facilitate the awareness of and participation in specialevents, and expand the opportunity to integrate these events intothe curriculum.
3. Assist students in taking the initiative to involve facultyand staff in the residential life of the campus.
4. Establish a Faculty/Staff Associates Program for the residencehalls.

Goal # 4: Cultivaterelationships between the College and the wider community thatsupport College programs and serve the community.

Objectives:
1. Articulate the college’s expectations for promotingthe involvement of its students, faculty and staff in relevantcommunity service.
2. Assess the community’s desire, expectations, andneeds for involvement in college activities and programs providedby the college.
3. Implement a plan to fully inform the surrounding communitiesof the services and events of the college available to them.
4. Conduct an economic impact study to encourage partnershipsin western NY with faculty, staff, and students.
5. Build on the current partnerships with the Rochester CitySchools, and increase purposeful involvement in all our publicschools.

Goal # 5: Expand fundingfor institutional priorities and initiatives through public andprivate support, grants, and entrepreneurial activities.

Objectives:
1. Implement a comprehensive five-year plan to increase privatesupport from alumni, friends, corporations, and foundations.
2. Increase the total sponsored research funding to one milliondollars by 2005.
3. Create an Advisory Group on Philanthropy and Advancementwith faculty, staff, students, alumni, parents, and communitymembers to foster communication and encourage participation inactivities designed to build understanding and support for thecollege. Establish a new Office of Entrepreneurial Activitiesto expand revenue-generating activities and strategic partnershipsthat advance Geneseo’s mission.



Goal #6: Promote institutional effectiveness through ongoingassessment in every program.

Objectives:
1. Assess the College’s overall progress in meetingits mission, goals, objectives and values across the institutionconsistent with external accreditation standards.
2. Implement an assessment plan for each department and administrativeunit to ensure the fulfillment of each unit’s objectivesconsistent with the mission, goals and values of the college.
3. Identify and establish the appropriate administrativestructure necessary for the implementation of this goal.
4. Ensure that assessment becomes a routine professionalactivity of faculty and staff in every academic and administrativedepartment.
5. Coordinate the College’s assessment efforts tocomplement prior assessment efforts and to avoid duplication ofeffort.


The Provost said that the next steps would include the following:
• Suggested timelines—how long it would taketo carry out objectives; who should carry out the objectives—which units or advisory groups, task forces, or committees.
• Metrics—ways to measure the success ofobjectives after they have been implemented.
• Integration with the budgetary system.

The Provost stressed that SPG’s work is a dynamicprocess, and it will not simply sit on a shelf for the next fiveyears. Moreover, the document is still officially a draft; therewill still be at least one more Open Forum for the Campus Communityto discuss this.

The Provost will soon send out the document to the student emaillist. Chair Lovett inquired whether the document is on a website.The Provost explained that, since it is a draft, the documenthas not yet been posted to a website. The SPG will have to decideon an appropriate website for the finished document.

R. Simon asked whether there were any documents additional tothe ones the Provost had presented and also whether anyone hadestimated the money required to implement the objectives. TheProvost replied that it still needs to be worked on. The prioritizingprocess had nothing to do with estimated costs; the College willhave to determine which objectives can be started right away andwhich ones will require more time. Simon stressed that a timelineshould include costs, and the Provost agreed; this is the onlyway to integrate the objectives with the budget.

Chair’s Report
Chair Lovett attended the UniversitySenate Planning Meeting several weekends ago in Albany andsat with other campus governance leaders. The governance leaderswould like to see better articulation between their group andthe University Faculty Senate. They have been invited to attendall four meetings of the University Faculty Senate.

The University Senate heard a presentation on the Saturday morningfrom the Chief Operating Officer of SUNY Richard Miller. Lovettwas pleased that, in his introduction, the COO stressed that theactual work of SUNY was indeed between faculty and students, notprimarily something that happens in State University Plaza [thenew name for SUNY Central].


Vice-Chair’s Report
T. Bazzett reported that the Excellence Awards Committee had met earlier this afternoon. The Committee has a heavy workload.It will start with the assessment process this week. Bazzett willkeep the Senate posted.

Treasurer’s Report
No report.

University Senator’s Report
No report. Chair Lovett noted that the University Faculty Senatewould meet next weekend in Fredonia.

Central Council Report
J. Lieberman reported that on Wednesday, 19 Sept, Central Councilpassed a resolution on behalf of the Student Association. Theresolution, drafted by Runa Rajagopal, expressed support toall those affected by the events of 11 September, and expressedconcern about possible backlash against possibly targetedmembers of the Geneseo community. Central Council felt that itwas appropriate and necessary to make a statement of this nature.

Last week, the Student Association passed a resolution to donate$10,000 to the Geneseo Foundation to help support the MainStreet Art Gallery. There was some concern about what thiswould mean for existing galleries on campus, but in the end, studentrepresentatives in attendance expressed a great deal of supportfor the donation, and Central Council voted to approve it.

Next weekend, four students will attend the State Student Assembly in Lake George. Geneseo has two students on the Executive Committee.Eric Blask serves as the Rules Chair, and Bruno Bernardino servesas Legislative Chair. Geneseo is continuing to make a name foritself in the State Student Assembly, and Geneseo’s representativesare looking forward to the meeting.

While attending the Center for Leadership Development’s National Conference in St Louis this past weekend, StudentAssociation President Nicole Duxbury spoke with her counterpartfrom the College of Charleston (Charleston, South Carolina), whotold here that their college is revamping their academic programwith Geneseo as a model. This serves as a great compliment toGeneseo as a University College and was an inspiring moment forthe students attending the conference.

Student Association Director of Academic Affairs Janet Wells islooking for faculty moderators for the College Bowl, whichwill be held on 12 November from 12-4PM in the College Union.Any faculty able to work at any time during the event should emailWells at jsw2.
Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate


Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Chair J. Bushnell presented the following motions:

1. The secondreading of the Minor Course Revision for BIOL/CHEM 385: Biochemistry Seminar (Bulletin, p. 18). The motion passed unanimously.

2. The first reading for the New Course, INTD 250, StudyAbroad Slot Course (Bulletin, 31-33).

Dean of the College T. Greenfield offered a friendly amendment,changing the number of the course to the 100 level. The course,he explained, is designed to appeal especially to new travelersand first-year students. Lovett asked for discussion on the amendment.Ren Vasiliev (Geography) asked whether this change would affectthe limit of 100-level courses students need to take. In lightof his office’s experience with these numbers over thepast ten years, Greenfield foresaw no problem.

Former Senate Chair C. Leary wondered whether a 100-leveldesignation would affect funding, and he asked whether the Stategives the College more money for 200-level courses than for 100-levelcourses.According to K. Levison, however, the distinction between100- and 200-level does not matter for funding, but lower-levelvs. upper-level (junior and senior) courses does.

The amendment was passed unanimously. The first reading wassubsequently passed unanimously.

3. The first reading of the Minor Course Revision forMATH 345 and 346 (Bulletin, pp. 32-33). The motion passedunanimously.

4. The first reading of the Course Deletion for ANTH 247 (Bulletin, p. 33). The motion passed unanimously.

5. The first reading of the Minor Course Revision forANTH 209, 211, 214, and 301 (Bulletin, p. 33). The motionpassed unanimously.

6. The first reading of the Minor Course Revision forANTH 224 (Bulletin, p. 33). This motion passed unanimously.


UCC will meet next week and the following week in Sturges 113.

Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review Committee
The Committee will meet next at 4PM on 30 October in Welles 111.

Graduate Academic Affairs Committee
D. Metz reported that the Committee would have its first meetingon 30 October.

Student Affairs Committee
D. McPherson said that the committee met on 25 September.The Committee has not yet formulated any proposals, but it islooking at issues related to S.A.F.E. Rider Program; the armingof the Campus Police; and the problem of sexual assault. The nextmeeting will take place on Tuesday, 23 October in Bailey 211.

Faculty Affairs Committee
No report.

New Business
There was no new business.

Adjournment
The Senate moved to adjourn at 5.21PM.

Respectfully submitted,



Graham N Drake
College Senate Secretary