College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin 5
1 October 1999

Contents
Page Topic
77 Call for Nominations for Supported Professorships
77-78 Announcements
  Next College Senate Meeting and All College Meeting
  Progress on FPC Nominations Process
78-80 Message from the Chair
  Notice of Future Deadline
  Charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on Intersession and Summer School
  Minutes
80-86 Executive Committee Meeting (24 September)
87 Faculty Affairs Committee (28 September)
88 Student Affairs Committee (28 September)

_______________________________________________________________

Correspondence: Becky L. Glass, Department of Sociology, Sturges 122C
E-mail: senate@geneseo.edu Phone: 245-5336
__________________________________________________________________

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

Nominations are now being accepted for two supported professorships:
Lockhart Professor and
Geneseo Foundation Professor

Deadline for nominations is Monday, November 15









These professorships will run from Sept. 2000 - May 2003 and carry an award of $6000/year
for the three years
.

Letters of nomination should be addressed to the Campus Awards Selection Committee, c/o the Provost's Office, Erwin 205. Nominees will be contacted soon after Nov. 15 and told what supporting documentation to provide.


ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

Rank of Associate Professor with continuing appointment (individuals selected must commit to continuous service, uninterrupted by leaves or sabbaticals, for the term of the appointment)

Demonstration of outstanding teaching, involvement of students in the learning process, superior advisement, meaningful involvement in campus life, and an active scholarly life.


_______________________________________________________________________

ANNOUNCEMENTS
________________________________________________

All College Meeting
October 19, 4:00 pm, Newton 204









At this meeting, the Committee on Nominations will present its nominations for new members to the Committee on Nominations and to the Faculty Personnel Committee, to replace those who are rotating off each committee on Dec. 1. Nominations from the floor can be taken for the Committee on Nominations, but nominations from the floor are not allowed for the FPC (see below).


Next College Senate Meeting

October 19, Newton 204
immediately following All College Meeting

Progress on the FPC Nominations Process

According to procedures developed last year and printed on p. 289 of the 98-99 Bulletin, the Committee on Nominations has sent a list of eligible faculty to the Department Heads.

Upon learning that some eligible faculty had not received their letters asking about their interest in serving on the FPC, the Committee is sending a revised list of eligible faculty to the Department Heads.

By October 13, each department is to nominate four people for FPC from the revised nominee list and notify the Committee on Nominations of its selections. No more than one of the four may be from the home department. (In the case of Education, History, Mathematics, and Physics, none can be from the home department as these departments have members currently on FPC who do not rotate off until next year.)

The Committee on Nominations will compile the departmental nominations and present a slate at the All College Meeting on October 19. It is necessary that at least one of the three elected to the FPC in this Fall's election be a full professor. Since there are several full professors willing to serve, it is expected that this requirement will be readily met.

___________________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
_______________________________________________________

Notice of Future Deadline

I have received some inquiries about nominations for the Harter Mentoring Award, the President's Award for Excellence in Academic Advising, and the President's Award for Excellence in Part-time Teaching. The deadline will be December 15. Nominations will be sent to the Campus Awards Selection Committee, c/o the Provost's Office. A Call for Nominations will appear in the Bulletin in mid-October.

__________________________________________________________

Charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on Intersession and Summer School (also known as the Intersession and Summer School Study Group)

The following charge was given to the committee on Sept. 16, 1999
(committee membership may be found on p. 72 of 99-00 Bulletin)









Language of the motion discussed and passed on May 4, 1999:

The Executive Committee of the College Senate strongly recommends that a joint committee be appointed in consultation with the Provost's Office and Central Council, to study and evaluate Intersession and Summer School and to report to the President, the Provost, the Dean of the College, and the Executive Committee of the Senate in Spring 2000. Issues to be addressed include how the sessions foster an enhanced learning experience for students, their length and timing, what constituencies they serve, and how they relate to the college's mission and vision. [underlining added]

Charge to the Committee:

To assess what contributions Intersession and Summer School currently make to the College (see underlined language above).

To assess how Intersession and Summer School fit into the overall financial picture of the College; how they contribute or detract from the financial health of the institution.

To suggest what could/should be done to enhance the contributions made by Intersession and Summer School.

To make recommendations to the President, Provost, Dean, and Senate Executive Committee about the future of Intersession and Summer School.

A preliminary report should be presented in February 2000. A final report, after dialogue with the above parties, should be completed in late April 2000.

In Appreciation

Again, thank you for serving on this important committee. The research, data gathering, and creative thinking that you do will have long-range effects on Geneseo's goal of being the premier public liberal arts college in the country.

Becky Glass, Chair of College Senate, & Barbara Dixon, Provost

The following suggestions were given to the committee for data gathering.

Some questions to ask in studying INTERSESSION:

[Note: The Provost has asked Tom Greenfield and Jim McNally to be resource persons for the committee. They can provide information on past practice, among other things. Also, there was an Intersession Advisory Committee about three years ago, chaired by Ray Lagesse. Nick Schiavetti served on that committee and is willing to share his notes]

What has been done in every dept. since the inception of Intersession (begun about 6 years ago)?

How many students are served?

What have the things (courses, study-abroad, etc.) we've done during Intersession added to the students' unique educational experience at Geneseo?

What could be done during Intersession that is unique and creative? [some of these ideas might stem from interviews/brainstorming with depts.]

Is it beneficial/feasible to make Intersession a more integral part of each student's education - e.g., each student participates in one Intersession during his or her college career?

Are there things that could be done or done better if Intersession were at another time, e.g., the last three weeks in May? What effect would that have on the start of the semester? in January? Other implications of such a change, e.g., for faculty research programs?

What is the cost of Intersession, including the hidden costs or benefits, e.g., library hours for Intersession? [Please note that there is no intention for this investigation to be strictly a financial cost/benefit analysis -- for instance, the intangible benefit of a study-abroad experience may outweigh a high per-student cost]

What do other campuses do with an Intersession or mini-semester or "winter term?" A good non-SUNY comparison group would be those in COPLAC.

What, if anything, would entice instructors to offer an Intersession "study adventure" (not only study-abroad; maybe a trip to another region of the U.S. or other experiential learning)?

Some questions to ask in studying SUMMER SCHOOL:

What has been done in Summer School for, say, the last five years?

How many students are served?

To ask departments:
What determines what you offer during Summer School?
What would entice more faculty to teach SS?
Would a long-term plan, such as a 2 or 3 year rotation of courses, be useful?
What would it take to make the best use of SS?

What would entice more students to stay for SS? Would a long-term plan, such as a 2 or 3 year rotation of courses, be useful? [One idea is to use student focus groups to solicit this and other info.]

What is the purpose of Summer School? Should we change the purpose?

How could we improve the quality of SS?

Are there any advantages to changing the length of SS (e.g., having one or more six-week sessions with 2 three-week sessions imbedded within)? For Education graduate students: What are public school teacher schedules?

What is the cost of Summer School, including the hidden costs or benefits?


Minutes of Senate Executive Committee

September 24, 1999

Present: B. Glass, J. Ballard, M. Mohan, A. Gridley, N. Schiavetti, B. Gohlman, J. Bushnell, T. Bazzett, E. Crosby, J. Bulsys, K. Cylke, C. Dahl, B. Dixon. Absent: C. Leary.

Call To Order: Chair B. Glass called the meeting to order at 3:50 pm.

Adoption of Agenda: The agenda was moved, seconded, and approved as printed.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting on September 10, 1999, were approved as printed on pp. 32-36 of College Senate Bulletin #3.

President’s Report (C. Dahl): The President reported on his meeting last Thursday with the Commission on Diversity and Community. New student members have been added to committee because all but one of last year’s student members graduated. Some new faculty and administrative members also have been added. The President is going ahead with appointments of persons or committees who will have responsibility for various aspects of recruitment and retention of international students. Mary Hope has been hired as the international student liaison.

N. Schiavetti asked if there was any information on: 1) how many new international students will come to Geneseo next year; 2) what their English language skills might be; and 3) what the implications might be for the English Department and the Communicative Disorders and Sciences Department in offering English-as-a-second-language (ESL) support. C. Dahl replied that minimum scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) will be in the 550 to 600 range, indicating fluent English skills. As specifics become available, administration will consult with the ESL office, as well as with the English and CDSc Departments about international students’ needs. No numbers (of students) are available yet, and estimates vary, but probably about 20 new students will enroll. Recruitment efforts are focusing on those international students that Geneseo is best equipped to serve, specifically students with no financial aid needs, with good English skills, and with aspirations for a traditional American college degree. N. Schiavetti noted that even high TOEFL scores do not preclude English problems, and that the affected departments will need estimates of numbers to begin planning. C. Dahl noted that some study of potential impact has been conducted, including work by R. Chierici on the needs of foreign students. The decision was made to go ahead with recruitment, with the understanding that we will probably, at the very least, have to keep one residence hall open year round. B. Dixon stated that she has talked with B. Caren about ESL possibilities. C. Dahl added that Academic Affairs has begun to study ESL needs on the campus for US citizens as well as for foreign students. It is sometimes difficult to get US citizens to identify themselves as needed ESL services, and some previous commitments of faculty lines and scheduled courses were underutilized. The college will support needs for ESL as they arise. The immediate goal of actively recruiting international students was to make a bold step toward change, while remaining cautiously aware of our ability and limits in meeting the needs of such students.

The Commission also discussed Cultural Harmony Week, and will continue to identify ways of making Geneseo a more welcoming place for persons of diverse backgrounds. C. Dahl will make available his written response to the Commission’s report, which will probably be posted on the Web.

Provost’s Report (B. Dixon): Provost Dixon announced that six hours of secretarial support per week will be available for the Senate. The time will be part of the assignment for a new secretary in the Provost’s office, whose job will also include assisting the new Associate Provost. B. Dixon noted that the Associate Provost is not a new position, but is rather a position that was left unfilled for the last few years. The secretarial line also is not new, but is reassigned from the library.

B. Glass stated that she will try to use this secretarial time to provide some continuity for regularly occurring procedures, such as elections and bulletin publication. C. Dahl noted that this decision is an outgrowth of discussion between administration and several previous Chairs of Senate. The secretarial time may help to provide some "institutional memory," as well as help with clerical duties. B. Glass has requested the Senate Work-Study Students to help with making the Senate office a more pleasant work space (with plants or wall hangings), so it will be inviting to the new clerical assistant. A new telephone has been installed, and a computer will be installed soon.

Chair’s Report (B. Glass):

  1. B. Glass and Provost Dixon worked together to write the charge for the Intersession/Summer School Committee. The charge will be printed in the Senate Bulletin for future reference.
  2. The Nominating Committee worked through the spring, summer, and early fall to identify a list of faculty members eligible to serve on the Faculty Personnel Committee. Following the guidelines set out on page 289 of the 1998-1999 College Senate Bulletin, letters were sent to eligible faculty requesting a yes or no response regarding their willingness to serve. Two lists have been sent to department chairs, including one of persons who have indicated their willingness and another list of persons who are eligible but who did not yet respond. Departments will have until October 13 to forward the names of four nominees to the Nominating Committee. In this year’s election, at least one full professor must be elected. The Nominating Committee members feel that the slates coming back from the departments will include several full professors and that at least one will be elected. They therefore see no need to determine procedures for ensuring this outcome.
K. Cylke asked whether a constitutional amendment will be proposed to replace the suggested procedure on page 289 of last year’s bulletin. B. Glass responded that this year’s Nominating Committee is providing a "test" of the suggested procedures. C. Dahl suggesting that we flag the topic of an amendment as an agenda item for the Executive Committee meeting of December or February. B. Gohlman asked whether it was clear to departments what they were supposed to do. B. Glass stated that the email to department chairs instructed departments to nominate four B individuals, only one of whom can be from that department. B. Gohlman added that departments with continuing representation on the Personnel Committee cannot send names from their own department. J. Bushnell recommended that these procedures should be clearly spelled out for departments. B. Glass added that the "official" master list of eligible faculty members may not be accurate, with some persons who were on leave last spring omitted from the list. C. Dahl further noted that prior committees have found that even lists from the payroll office in Albany may not include all names. J. Bushnell pointed out that recent promotions also may be left off the list. All agreed that several approaches will be needed to identify all eligible faculty.
  1. Glass attended the meeting of Campus Governance Leaders (CGL) at the University Faculty Senate (UFS) Planning Meeting. She obtained information on the controversy about the presidential search and land transfer at Old Westbury College (OWC). Legislation was passed in April by the State Assembly giving the Board of Trustees (BOT) authority to lease OWC land to the College Foundation, which may enter into partnerships with private developers. This legislation was passed by the NY State Senate by being attached to the state budget bill. Other irregularities regarding the land transfer have emerged; for example, the linear feet mentioned in the legislation do not correspond with actual dimensions. Interactions regarding the land transfer are somewhat mysterious, partly because there are currently no students and no faculty on the board of the College Foundation. The UFS passed a resolution regarding the OWC land transfer, which read as follows:
TO: State University of New York Board of Trustees

FROM: University Faculty Senate Executive Committee

RE: Resolution on College at Old Westbury Land Transfer

DATE: September 18, 1999

WHEREAS recent New York State legislation authorizes the Board of Trustees to lease the college foundation of Old Westbury at least 163 acres of campus land for the purpose of development;

WHEREAS this type of major transfer of campus land — the impetus for which did not arise from within the college and the planned development of which has lacked faculty participation and academic rationale — sets a dangerous precedent for other SUNY campuses;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate urge the SUNY Board of Trustees to approve development projects authorized under this land transfer legislation that:

  •  
    • Ensure such projects legitimately emanate from and serve to advance the college’s academic mission;
    • Ensure specific benefits and revenues will accrue to the college as a result of such development projects;
    • Ensure active consultation of the Old Westbury Faculty Senate and other major constituencies in the development and implementation of any land transfer projects;
    • Ensure any conflict of interest among members of College Councils, Foundations, College Chief Executive Officers, Senior Administrators, SUNY Trustees and any companies, contractors and agents to be engaged in proposed development projects are identified, publicly acknowledged, and resolved in the best interests of the College at Old Westbury; and
    • Ensure there will be comprehensive and vigilant oversight of the Old Westbury College Foundation in their project management and reporting.
B. Glass noted that Chancellor Ryan responded to questions at the UFS Planning Meeting by saying there has been no land transfer, and that any proposals for land transfer would have to go through his office. He was not asked what he would do with such a proposal.

B. Dixon reported that she attended the BOT meeting at which the Trustees voted on the nomination of Rev. Butts for the OWC presidency. Three board members publicly abstained from the vote (C. DeRussy, N. Kim, and S. Traylor) because of flaws in the presidential search process. Paul Perez and Patrice Stevens strongly supported the nominee and argued that the flawed process should not prevent students from getting the best possible president. The point was made at the meeting that previous boards had thought of closing OWC, and that the present board wanted to support OWC and make it the "finest" of SUNY colleges. Rev. Butts was approved as the new president of OWC.

B. Glass continued with her report on the CGL agenda. Mission Review was discussed, and some campuses appeared to view the process as threatening. Binghamton invited the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor to visit their campus soon after the controversies between the UFS and BOT last spring. The Chancellor and Vice Chancellor met with faculty governance leaders at Binghamton in the summer. The Vice Chancellor suggested that campuses invite Trustees to visit, to help "educate" the BOT about what we do. Concern among CGLs is that this proposal will serve as an "end run" around the University Faculty Senate, with campuses promoting their own needs and increasing divisiveness among campuses.

Distance Learning was discussed briefly by the CGLs, with one campus indicating interest in plans of other campuses for distance learning classes. The budget allocation process was on the CGL agenda, but was not discussed. In discussion of the mandated general education requirements, B. Glass noted some interesting characteristics of Plattsburg’s curriculum. Two years ago, Plattsburg went to zero-based planning for its Gen. Ed. classes. The Plattsburg president is interested in having an expectation of language proficiency, having Gen. Ed. courses be 4-credit hours with 1 hour of embedded technology training, and having a study abroad experience for all students.

Vice-Chair’s Report (C. Leary): No report.

Treasurer’s Report (M. Mohan): M. Mohan checked with Sue Dioguardi and Roxanne Johnston about the possibility of "rolling over" the income portion of the Roark Account into the Endowment, to enable us to earn the maximum interest. In actuality, the reported Income and base Endowment earn interest as a single account — interest is computed on the total $1,429.52. The Foundation’s auditors require that the income be reported out separately. To eliminate any confusion for future reports, the Roark Endowment will reflect the total amount (base and income added together). If the Executive Committee feels that it would be beneficial to let the account grow over a period of five years without using any of the funds as income, it can make that request. In this case, the $200 Richard Roark Faculty Memorial Award would be taken out of the General College Senate Fund.

A. Gridley asked whether payment from the Senate Fund would later be reimbursed from the Roark fund. All agreed that such would not be the case, with Senate Fund supported by yearly contributions. K. Cylke moved adoption of the "five-year plan," with Senate Fund paying the Roark for five years to help rebuild the base of the Roark fund. Motion was seconded and approved unanimously. University Faculty Senator’s Report (J. Bulsys): Two emails were received this week from Joe Flynn, President of University Faculty Senate. The first concerned the OWC controversy. Flynn noted the BOT meeting on September 22, at which Rev. Butts was approved as the OWC president. Flynn presented the UFS resolutions to the BOT, and he worked to keep separate the issues of the candidate and process of the presidential search. He reported that the OWC faculty are "dispirited and depressed", but he stressed the need for a strong faculty senate to help OWC during its transition. The second email announced the next Senate Plenary Session, which will be held in Potsdam October 14-16, 1999. A panel will be staged to discuss the current plans for implementing the BOT guidelines for general education. Flynn requested the names of key faculty members from each campus Gen. Ed. Committee. He also asked whether the campus Gen. Ed. Committee reports to the local senate for discussion of changes prior to submitting them to Provost Salins. Finally, he requested a short list of the most important problems faced by the campus Gen. Ed. committee in responding to the Provost’s call letter.

In discussion, C. Dahl noted the importance of our senate working together with the Gen. Ed. Committee. J. Bulsys asked if there is a "key member" we can identify for J. Flynn. B. Dixon noted that the Dean is the chair of the committee. C. Dahl suggested that the "key member" could be the Dean if the purpose is to provide information to the UFS about the actions of the committee. After some discussion, it was agreed that J. Bulsys will provide J. Flynn with the names and contact information for the Dean (as chair of the Gen. Ed. committee) and for other committee members. B. Dixon noted that Core Committee Chairs currently are meeting with the Gen. Ed. Committee. J. Bulsys has these names/addresses and will include them in the reply to J. Flynn.

Central Council (A. Gridley):

  1. R. Bonfiglio spoke with Student Association about the shuttle service to the Henrietta malls on Saturdays. He suggested expanding the service to provide transport to other Rochester events or sites, partly as a way to support diversity efforts. His suggestion sparked much discussion on Central Council about the parameters of such a service. More information on financial needs will be sought. Goals of the Student Association also were discussed, with much participation from students.
  2. A retreat for student senators will be held tomorrow (Saturday, Sept. 25) at the Campus House. Agenda items include a presentation by Susan Bailey about student involvement in curriculum development, information about how senate works, discussion of past senate issues, and discussion of how to communicate to students about the presence and functions of student senators (to increase student input on voting).
  3. Regarding the OWC controversy, A. Gridley has tried to contact student leaders at OWC to find out how they feel about the issue, and what they know about the presidential search process. She has been unable to find email addresses or other lists of student leaders.
  4. A. Gridley noted that the Supreme Court has begun to review a case on how mandatory student fees can be used. C. Dahl noted that the case is the University of Wisconsin case, which went to the Federal Appeals Court and now to the U.S. Supreme Court. Among other things, the case may affect funding of religious and cultural groups and events on campus.
Faculty Affairs Committee (N. Schiavetti):
  1. FAC will meet on Tuesday, Sept. 28, 1999. Subcommittees will be developed to examine continuation of SOFI and the relationship between continuing appointment and promotion. N. Schiavetti is gathering background information to share with the subcommittees on both issues. One charge of the subcommittees will be to interview chairs, the provost, and past personnel committee members about the tenure/promotion guidelines and to interview relevant people on campus regarding SOFI.
  2. Regarding the academic freedom question brought to FAC two weeks ago, N. Schiavetti reported that the faculty member involved had already talked to the UUP grievance officer (M. Stolee) and to the Dean of the College before approaching the FAC chair. The Provost is looking into the issue in the broader context of multiple sections of courses.
Graduate Academic Affairs (J. Bushnell): No report.

Policy Committee (B. Gohlman): Some items before the General Education Task Force, such as issues about syllabus construction and guidelines for multi-section courses, may come before the Policy Committee. B. Gohlman suggested that the membership of the General Education Committee may need to change to permanently include the recent addition of the Core Chairs to its ranks.

J. Bushnell noted that the Senate cannot amend the Constitution (Article 10). According to the Senate Constitution, Article 10 can be amended by the administration. K. Cylke and C. Dahl noted that such administrative decisions are usually informed by consultation and discussion with the Executive Committee of Senate. There was general agreement that it would be worthwhile for Policy to discuss the issue even though the faculty can't vote on amending Article X.

Student Affairs (E. Crosby): The committee will meet next Tuesday. B. Bonfiglio and R. Farquharson will speak to the committee. Student senators have identified several issues that will be on the agenda for the committee to discuss: alcohol consumption by students and advertisement of "alternatives"; the relationship between alcohol use and date rape; establishment of a sexual assault hot line; establishment of a paid or volunteer safe-escort service on foot.

Undergraduate Curriculum (T. Bazzett): The committee will meet again next Tuesday. In general, departments appear to be thinking ahead on Core requirements and General Education requirements as they submit proposals to UCC.

Unfinished Business: B. Glass called for continued discussion of the possible contributions Senate can make to the efforts outlined by the Commission on Diversity and Community.

B. Gohlman referred to the notes from a conversation with Bob Owens (Chair of the Commission on Diversity and Community), and asked for ideas about ways the Executive Committee or Senate can contribute to Owens’ suggestions. For example, what can we do to meet the suggestion of identifying different learning styles and developing diverse teaching styles to meet these different learning needs? B. Dixon suggested that the Faculty Teaching and Program Development Committee could take up this question. B. Gohlman asked how Senate might help to bring about more interaction between student organizations. E. Crosby noted that some interaction already occurs. A. Gridley agreed, and suggested that more interactions occur when organizations have common goals or issues. E. Crosby suggested that it might be helpful to provide a space (such as shared offices, libraries, etc.) that could promote interaction between organizations. Such a space might combine academic resources spaces with student organizational space to help build interaction. A concern will be avoiding the creation of a "diversity ghetto." C. Dahl suggested that the redesign of residence halls might provide an opportunity to address the question. A. Gridley noted that most of the ethnic and religious groups on campus frequently invite all to attend their meetings. B. Glass noted that the Gold Leadership Center has activities for executive boards of organizations to build leadership. The Center could be brought into the discussion of diversity/community. B. Gohlman asked how we might encourage student attendance at special events relevant to diversity issues, such as certain GEVA productions. B. Dixon added that foreign films at the Little Theater could also be encouraged. A. Gridley noted that B. Bonfiglio’s suggestion about shuttle services may make it easier to provide class-related trips to such events. J. Ballard asked whether the cost of shuttle service might be covered by Senate for an event like the GEVA production. E. Crosby asked whether students currently pay for the service. A. Gridley replied that students would probably be willing to pay some part of the cost, but the shuttle to the mall is currently funded by activity fees. B. Glass asked about the actual cost, and A. Gridley responded that a trip, including bus and driver, is around $290. B. Dixon noted that a Kemps bus trip to Toronto runs around $675. C. Dahl suggested that these amounts might be too large for the senate budget. A. Gridley made a final suggestion about ways that Senate can promote diversity/community efforts: when Senate or Senate Committees hold discussions on diversity/community, multicultural groups should be invited to participate. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Joan C. Ballard
Secretary of the College Senate