20 October 2000
|24 October||Graduate Affairs Committee||Wads 204||4 p.m.|
|24 October||UCC||TBA||4 p.m.|
|24 October||Faculty Affairs Committee||TBA||4 p.m.|
|26 October||Executive Committee||South 309||12:50 p.m.|
|31 October||Student Affairs Committee||South 110||4 p.m.|
|14 November||College Senate||Newton 204||4 p.m.|
|5 December||College Senate||Newton 204||4 p.m.|
Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 245-5383
Comments from the Chair 80
Public Service Announcement 96
Comments from the Chair
As is reported about three other times in this issue of the Bulletin, the Nominations Committee has successfully recruited candidates for the fall elections. The names of the candidates for the Faculty Personnel Committee and for the Nominations Committee were published in the Bulletin last week, but due to what is politely called an "oversight", I screwed up and forgot that we needed to hold an election this fall for University Faculty Senator. Fortunately, the Nominations Committee managed to find two candidates for this election, as well. Once again, my thanks to the members of that Committee for bailing me out on very short notice.
The following slates of candidates were presented to and accepted by the All College Meeting on 17 October. The order of the candidates on the ballots was determined by random choice. I urge you to check these ballots carefully and to contact me if you notice any misspellings or omissions. Any candidate who would like a different form of their name used on the ballot is also urged to let me know.
Faculty Personnel CommitteeVote for no more than four candidates.
Nominations CommitteeVote for no more than three candidates.
University Faculty SenatorVote for no more than one candidate.
The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of 12 October state that the eligible voters for all three races in the fall election would be the teaching faculty. A subsequent check of the Constitution and Bylaws revealed that this would incorrectly exclude the administrative and professional faculty from voting for the position of University Faculty Senator. Thus in the fall election the teaching faculty will elect members of the Faculty Personnel Committee and the Nominations Committee. The faculty will elect the University Faculty Senator.
At the Senate meeting of 17 October, questions were raised about the security and safety of the proposed change to an electronic tabulation of the ballots for the fall election. I will briefly report on a meeting that I had with Maryann Stopha on 18 October and describe the voting process as it is currently planned. This is an ongoing project, so anyone with comments and/or suggestions is encouraged to send them to me as soon as possible.
No later than 3 November, a letter will be sent to each eligible voter listing the candidates for each election. This letter will also contain the URL for the login page for the election and two random numbers, with no two voters receiving the same set of random numbers.
When a voter accesses the login page, he or she will be asked to provide the two random numbers that they had been sent. When these numbers are correctly entered, the voter will be presented with the candidates for the election(s) in which they are eligible to vote. The voter will select their candidate(s) of choice and click on a "submit" button, at which time they will be shown what candidates they have chosen and given a last opportunity to alter their votes before casting their ballot. When the ballot is cast, a database will record the fact that the given random numbers had been used to cast a vote, and a separate database will be updated to record the fact that another vote had been cast for Candidate X, Candidate Y, and Candidate Z.
Voting is scheduled to end on 10 November.
It should be noted that at no time in this process are the random numbers associated in any computer file with the name of the voter holding the random numbers. The database containing the list of random numbers will only contain the numbers and whether the numbers have been used to vote or not. The database containing the running totals for the number of votes for each candidate will contain that information and nothing more.
I asked Maryann if it was conceivable that some Evil Hacker could break into a log file and find out that (for example) at 3:15 on Tuesday random number 1234 was used to enable a vote, and that at 3:17 a vote was recorded for Candidate X, thus allowing Evil Hacker to conclude that whoever had random number 1234 had voted for Candidate X. Maryann said that it was conceivable, but that it would take her several hours of work if she wanted to do it. To attempt to work from that information and then deduce from which computer the votes had been cast would require physical access to wiring and a knowledge of the IP addresses involved. Further conversations with Sean Gordon of CIT have indicated that the databases involved with the voting will be at least as secure as the systems that hold student accounts and student transcripts. Thus, although it is conceivable that Evil Hacker could compromise the election and/or the secrecy of an individual's ballot, it is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely.
Present: J. Ballard, S. Bandoni Muench, C. Faulkner, K. Hahn, T. Hon, J. Koch, M. Lima, J. McLean, N. Paternosto, P. Schacht, E. Spilman, J. Wrubel
Meeting called to order at 4:05
Today's topic: discussion of pros and cons of local and national forms
J. Wrubel started the conversation by asking the cost of the national forms. Members of last year's committee estimated that it would cost about $13,000 plus costs of work-study students etc., but all the information is on the website for the Idea form. Another problem the Committee identified with the Idea form is how much more time-consuming it really is for the students to fill them out. Will this be a problem? K. Hahn noted that students may find the test-like format off-putting. Committee members suggested that if it was offered at the beginning of class and scheduled on the syllabus this may preclude student worries. J. Ballard did a pilot test of the Idea form with her students and asked them what they thought. Her students thought the Idea form easier to complete, but our form has more space for comments, and students' written comments are more helpful than the bubble results. J. Ballard also offered that the SOFI results and the Idea results essentially correlated. Some debate was conducted over the short versus long form in regards to class time, results, and accreditation. M. Lima offered that her students complained about the Idea and that it took 35 minutes of class time.
Committee members then discussed the biases built into the Idea form including the comparison question and the fact that the rating scale on the Idea form changes. Would this confuse students and alter the results? In addition, S. Bandoni Muench raised the issue that the Idea tells the instructor that he/she is being compared to similar classes across the nation, but the instructor never discovers what those other classes are.
P. Schacht suggested that before discussing the Idea we should discuss the issue of local vs. national. J. Ballard offered that she liked other national forms better than the Idea, but still does not know whether they are in fact more reliable than our SOFIs. Committee members proceeded to debate the issue of reliability/validity of results of national forms. What exactly are we trying to measure? Learning? Student opinion? Teaching effectiveness? In addition, FAC members expressed concern over how the results of forms would be used. Although SOFIs reflect student opinion, they are used to determine teacher effectiveness. J. Ballard suggested all forms contain same biases. J. McLean suggested that a fruitful area of discussion might be figuring out what we want the form to measure. Do we want to measure teacher performance or what students learned? J. Koch suggested that we can't measure learning but we can measure other things we think are important. M. Lima pointed out that every syllabus in the future will have to have learning outcomes on them. Should we be ahead of the game? J. Ballard thought it reasonable to measure learning at the end of the semester based on learning outcomes on syllabus. P. Schacht questioned whether a student opinion form is indeed the right forum for determining learning. Isn't that what tests are for? So that leaves the question, are we measuring faculty performance? We want to stay away from student opinion of faculty's annoying traits.
Committee proceeded to debate what we want the form to measure. T. Hon asked whether we are interested in measuring teacher effectiveness? J. McLean suggested that the conversation had revolved thus far around four headings: teacher effectiveness, learning outcomes, student opinion, specified behaviors. S. Bandoni Muench asked that we keep in mind the functions summarized by last year's subcommittee: summative, formative, course choice, education/learning, expression of educational values. Committee members expressed concern that b/c the student opinion forms are used for tenure they must be administered and considered in a uniform fashion across departments.
Should FAC offer suggestions for how they should be used in departments and tenure cases as well as make suggestions for peer evaluation? M. Lima noted that SOFIs become privileged in tenure decisions b/c they are in people's files. Can we put peer evaluations in files as well? J. Wrubel suggested that before we address peer evaluations we deal with the SOFIs. The FAC has two charges, promotion/continuing appointment and SOFIs--are these issues related? If we broaden the base of teaching evaluation will this alleviate faculty concerns about the SOFI? J. Koch suggested that FAC needs direction. J. McLean reminded the committee that we had been discussing what we are trying to measure. C. Faulkner asked if we were still debating the pros and cons of local vs. national. S. Bandoni Muench noted that all these issues are related.
P. Schacht offered these directions: what are we trying to measure? What form do we need to measure this? how does this fit into the larger picture of faculty review? P. Schacht proceeded to offer a motion that we begin discussion with what we want the form to measure. J. Koch seconds. FAC voted unanimously in favor. For the next meeting, all FAC members will come up with things they want the form to measure. S. Bandoni Muench reminded FAC to keep in mind the premises put together by last year's subcommittee.
Next meeting Oct. 24
Meeting adjourned at 5:10
Present: C. Leary, B. Dixon, E. Wallace, E.Gillin, J. Lovett, T. Bazzett, J. Bushnell, J.Liu, M.Lima, E.Kallin, A.-M. Reynolds, W. Pogozelski
1. C. Leary called the meeting to order at 12:50 p.m.
2. Chair's Report
C. Leary reported the Nominations Committee's nominees for the Faculty Personnel Committee and for new members of the Nominations Committee. The nominations for FPC are Douglas Baldwin, Larry Blackman, Patrice Case, Kurt Cylke, Laura Doan, Beverly Evans, Carlo Filice, David Geiger, William Gohlman, Rosanne Hartman, Harold Hoops, Kathleen Jones, Sonja Landes, Alan Lutkus, Donald Marozas, Darrell Norris, Ed Spicka and Gary Towsley. The nominations for the Nominations Committee are Dave Aagesen, Charles Freeman, Cynthia Klima, Ted Everett, Terry Browne and Gerard Floriano.
C. Leary announced that the November elections will take place via computer. He recently met with Maryann Stopha to test the website and found that it works. J. Bushnell asked if the website checked for eligibility of the voter. C. Leary said that it would not be a problem in the fall semester because only faculty would be voting. E. Wallace reminded Chris that the election for University Senator now has to take place in the fall semester. There was a question as to whether or not this position is elected only by faculty or by faculty and professional staff. J. Bushnell referred to her copy of the constitution and said that only the faculty vote. [This is incorrect. Please see the Comment From the Chair in this issue of the Bulletin. Ed.] C. Leary said that he would find two nominees for University Senator.
The schedule for fall elections has been set. C. Leary said that the report from the Nominations Committee would be published on 13 October and that next Tuesday would be an all-college meeting, but no nominations would be accepted from the floor for FPC. Next Friday Chris will publish the ballot and the following week it will be published again with any corrections. Letters with pin numbers for on-line voting will be sent out by 3 November. Faculty must vote by 10 November. Winners will be announced at the Senate meeting on 14 November.
T.Bazzett asked if all voting would be done electronically. C. Leary said yes.
3. Provost's Report
Provost Dixon apologized for President Dahl's absence, saying that he had been called to a meeting of all SUNY presidents by Chancellor King.
Provost Dixon encouraged members of the committee to in turn encourage their colleagues to work on the working groups that will report to the Strategic Planning Committee. She cited the potential for addressing implementations that would occur in the next 3-5 years and for making recommendations regarding flexible funds. She stressed that the committee was not facing a time-dependent fall activity and that its work would likely be completed by Spring Break.
Provost Dixon reminded members that the President is calling for twelve individuals to serve on each working group that would develop objectives for the college. She said that interested individuals should submit their names to Laura Wrubel in the President's Office at email@example.com and identify the priority preferred. E. Kallin asked if students were eligible. The Provost said that yes, they were, that she would send an email to students telling them to leave their names with Laura Wrubel as well.
4, Vice-Chair's Report. No report.
5. Treasurer's Report. No report.
6. Central Council Report.
E.Kallin said that the trial SAFE-rider program starts 15 October and will operate from 8:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. (1:00 during Finals Week). It is a service designed for single pedestrians (students or faculty not already walking in pairs or in groups) and will transport people between academic buildings, campus parking lots, and residence halls. The transportation will be provided by a golf cart that can accommodate up to six people and will connect with a KnightRider stop for people who want to go off campus. Anyone desiring the service should call X7777.
7. Student Affairs Report
J.L.Liu said that SAC has decided to meet with Tom Bell from CAS to discuss the issues of the cost of Smart cards and the quality of food service on campus. The committee has also divided into several subgroups to work on different projects. The first is the Union renovation. She said that according to the Office of Student and Campus Life, the Union appears as the number 3 priority out of 22 items. C.Leary asked if this list was Bob Bonfiglio's list or another list. J.L.Liu replied that it was Bob's list. T. Bazzett asked what the number 1 and 2 priorities were. E.Kallin replied that he thought the items were the pool and a gym floor. J.L.Liu said that Bob Bonfiglio had asked Ken Levison to put the Union higher on the priority list.
The committee plans to do some empirical studies to assess any problems of bias or discrimination on campus. JeeLoo also said that the committee plans to look at the condition of faculty-student interaction. W. Pogozelski asked if the faculty-student interaction study was limited to bias issues. JeeLoo said no, that availability of faculty and advisement would be addressed. She said that the Institutional Research Office has a lot of data on faculty involvement and that the committee has obtained the data from Jim McNally.
8. Faculty Affairs Report.
M. Lima reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee had discussed the pros and cons of local and national SOFI forms. The committee wants to be certain of what the form is trying to measure and plans to discuss this issue at the next meeting on October 24 at 4 p.m. J.Lovett asked if the process would reflect the fact that some professors are not recognized as being good until several years down the road. She suggested that the exit survey filled out by seniors might ask which professors had made the most impact on them. Provost Dixon said that she knew of a professor who mailed each of his students a self-addressed, stamped envelope for an evaluation to be made several years hence. W.Pogozelski said that she had participated in a pilot study of an alternate SOFI form but had never received the results. M.Lima suggested that she contact H.Waddy. Maria said that one major concern was the amount of time it took students to complete the IDEA form (35 minutes or more) that was tested last year. She said that results from the standard SOFI had correlated with results from the IDEA form. A.-M. Reynolds said that her first assessment of the pilot study was that no one had liked the new form. M.Lima said that she would bring the results to the next meeting. J.L.Liu asked if a sample form would be distributed to all faculty. M.Lima said that once the committee specifies what it wants to measure, a survey will be distributed to all faculty members with sample forms attached.
9. Graduate Academic Affairs Report No report.
10. Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review Committee
E.Gillin reported that the committee had constructed a brief motion for the Senate that would explicitly state that syllabi must be distributed on paper. The Provost asked what the rationale for the motion was. Ed said that there were a few factors, including the fact that students are not required to use computers. The Provost said that everyone had to use a computer to register. J.Bushnell reported that despite this requirement, she had encountered at least one student who did not know how to log on. Ed said that similar anecdotes existed. Ed also said that another consideration was the fact that professors did not want to impinge on student printing accounts. M.Lima confirmed that students had grumbled about having to print out syllabi; she said that it was a good idea that the syllabus be "free" to the students. J.L.Liu asked if there were faculty who did not distribute paper copies of their syllabi. E.Gillin said yes. He also stressed that the proposal was not based on complaints but was a request from the dean's office for clarification. He said that the resolution may change in the future.
11. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. No report.
12. The meeting was adjourned at 1:23 p.m.
I. Call to Order
C.Leary, Chair of the Senate, called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
I. Presentation of the Nominees for the Faculty Personnel Committee
The following names were submitted as candidates for election to the Faculty Personnel Committee for a two-year term beginning 1 December 2000.
H.Hoops asked if the list reflected all the names that had been submitted by departments. C.Leary said that a notice had been sent to each department asking for four names. These lists were sent to the Nominations Committee, votes were tallied, and the top names were sent to him. Therefore, it is conceivable that some names had been submitted but had not made the final list. A motion to accept the nominations was made, seconded and unanimously approved.
II. Presentation of the Nominees for the Committee on Nominations
The following slate of nominees was presented as candidates for election to the Committee on Nominations for a two-year term beginning 1 December 2000.
The opportunity was given to provide additional nominations from the floor but no names were offered. A motion to close the nominations was made, seconded, and unanimously approved.
III. Presentation of the Nominees for University Faculty Senator
The following nominees were presented as candidates for election to the position of University Faculty Senator.
A motion to accept the nominations was made, seconded, and unanimously approved.
C. Leary adjourned the meeting at 4:07
Present: H.Almubaid, S.Bailey, J.Ballard, T.Bazzett, B.Brennan, B.Briggs, K.Broikou, S.Brown, J.Bushnell, M.-M.Chang, E.Cleeton, J.Curran, C.Dahl, K.Davies, B.Dixon, T.Feeley, J.Ferrell, C.Filice, S.Fitzsimous, J.Fowler Morse, DJ Gallup, J.Garvey, E.Gillin, B.Glass, B.Gohlman, T.Greenfield, K.Hahn, E.Hall, A.Happ, G.Hartvigsen, D.Hill, T.-K.Hon, H.Hoops, H.Howe, T.Hurlburt, S.Iyer, K.Jones, B.Joshi, E.Kallin, J.Kirkwood, S.Kirsh, J.Koch, S.Landes, C.Leary, J.Lerch, M.Lima, J.Liu, B.Lofquist, J.Lovett, T.Macula, BR.McEwen, J.McLean, D.Metz, J.Mounts, S.Bandoni Muench, K.Nichols, Ol.Nicodemi, M.Oberg, J.Pacella, P.Pacheco, W.Pogozelski, E.Putman, A.-M.Reynolds, S.Salmon, P.Schacht, N.Schiavetti, M.Skerritt, E.Spilman, L.Stellrecht, M.Stolee, D.Sullivan, C.Truglia, E.Wallace, C.Wixson, J.Wrubel
I. Call to Order
C.Leary called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.
II. Adoption of Agenda
A motion to adopt the agenda was made, seconded, and unanimously approved.
III. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting (Bulletin pp. 32-36).
A motion to approve the Minutes of the previous meeting was made, seconded, and unanimously approved.
IV. Senate Reports
Chair's Report - Chris Leary
C.Leary noted some problems with the distribution of the Bulletin and requested that people let him know if they are not receiving it. He then encouraged Senate members to contribute to the SEFA Appeal and said that Jerry Wrubel has the forms if anyone needs them. Jerry said that he would even hand deliver such forms. Lastly, Chris announced that Fall Elections will be done electronically. T.Macula said that voting by computer could "disenfranchise people". He said that the Constitution requires voting "by secret ballot" and therefore the Senate should vote about such a change. C.Leary replied that to the best of his knowledge, computer voting would be as secret as paper voting would be. He also said that all eligible voters have an email account, a password, and access to a computer. They will also be notified of the electronic election by paper. H.Hoops asked what the advantage of electronic voting is. Chris replied that the electronic tabulation of votes would save many hours of human labor and would save a few trees. B.Glass said that it would also eliminate the dependence on middle people such as secretaries who are often given ballots in multiple groups. She said that the electronic method would eliminate the potential for votes to "fall through the cracks." C.Leary added that since collecting and handing in ballots is not part of most secretaries' job descriptions, removing this responsibility would be an advantage for them. J.Ballard said that the system sounded pragmatic but she wondered if fears about ballots remaining secret could be addressed. C.Leary described the old system in which there was significant potential for a ballot to be non-secret. He said that it was conceivable that someone could look through electronic records and match pin numbers with votes and that the electronic method was "not less secure" than the old method. T.Macula said that he was also concerned with the process by which the voting procedure was being changed. B.Gohlman therefore suggested that the Senate vote on the change. M.Lima made a motion to approve the electronic election; the motion was seconded by J.Bushnell and was passed unanimously. C.Leary announced that the voting information would be sent out about 3 November and the elections would end on approximately 10 November.
President's Report - Chris Dahl
President Dahl began by saying that work on the new residence complex had begun and construction was "refreshingly on schedule". The college is also moving forward on the Integrated Science Building. He then encouraged faculty to join the groups that would be looking at the Six Goals Involved in Strategic Planning. He announced that an initiative has begun to determine the extent of faculty involvement in community activity. Called the Strategic Community Partnership Initiative, it seeks to raise the profile of the college in the Rochester area and seeks a wide range of community involvement, from "traditional" areas such as internships to lesser-known social involvement. He hopes that people will respond in "broadest liberal arts terms," showing how the kind of education offered at Geneseo has "enriching relevance." As part of the strategic community partnerships effort, Geneseo is taking a lead role in organizing a New York State chapter of the national service-learning organization, Campus Compact. Vice President Bonfiglio is coordinating the effort, and President Dahl will serve as co-chair of the executive committee for this group. President Dahl then invited faculty to visit the new Art Gallery acquired by the Geneseo Foundation. It will be showing an exhibition of work by area artists from 22 October to 4 November. The exhibit is coordinated through the Genesee Valley Council of Arts. President Dahl then said that several members of the Commission on Diversity and Community had attended a Boundaries and Borderlines Conference on ways to foster community and encourage diversity. The Commission will be sharing its ideas in the future. He expressed appreciation for the members' work. On a similar theme, he stressed that the college wanted to show tolerance for and appreciation of diversity. Given the recent demeaning and offensive posters seen on campus, he expressed his desire to concur with the recent email from Bob Bonfiglio, stating that while the college seeks to encourage productive discourse, it wants to demonstrate clearly where it stands in supporting such organizations as the GLBF and the Womyn's Action Coalition as valued members of the college community.
Provost's Report - Barbara Dixon
Provost Dixon issued a plea for volunteers to participate in the next phase of Strategic Planning. A working group will be formed for each of the six overarching goals. She noted that the participants will influence how the college spends its resources and directs its energies in the next 5-10 years. She encouraged interested persons to contact Laura Wrubell (firstname.lastname@example.org). Interested students should talk to Nicole Duxbury, chair of Central Council. J.Lovett asked if the search for participants had a closing date. The Provost said that she would be sending out an all-staff email with the closing date and that it would be "soon." She then showed two posters that had come from the new printer purchased for students and faculty who are presenting posters at national meetings. She stressed that the cost of the printing jobs prevents "trial runs" and warned people that, in consideration of the Family Weekend poster session coming up, the printer cannot do last-minute projects and can handle only a certain number of jobs each day. Interested persons should contact Chris Leckinger in Media Services. She said that Dr. Padalino in her office might also be able to help. J.Ballard issued a "hooray". Someone asked if the price of printing would come from student printing accounts. The Provost responded in the affirmative. She concluded by noting that the Chronicle of Higher Education has a full-page ad for faculty positions at Geneseo.
Treasurer's Report - Anne-Marie Reynolds
Vice-Chair's Report - Jan Lovett
University Faculty Senator's Report - Ed Wallace
Central Council Report - Eric Kallin
E.Kallin reported that the brand new Student Association Service, the SAFE Rider, began on Sunday, October 15th. The service is a call-up safety escort that can be reached by dialing extension 7777 Sunday - Thursday from 8:30 pm - 12:30 am. The Student Association purchased a gas-powered golf cart that is driven by University Police-trained Public Safety Aides. The first run of the program was deemed very successful. Twenty-one runs were made and thirty students were transported. The student association would also like to invite any faculty and staff staying late on campus to utilize the service as a SAFE escort to parking lots or any other on-campus locations.
He then noted that Midknight Madness begins Friday, October 20 at 7:30 outside the Alumni Fieldhouse. The doors to Kuhl Gym will open at 9:30. The evening will host events such as a dizzybat relay, a three-point shootout, a faculty vs. staff basketball game, a half-court shot, and much more. Several Student Association (SA) and non-SA-sponsored organizations will be participating. He said that he hopes to see many people there, that it should be a "great time."
Lastly, Eric invited the campus to a candlelight vigil that the Student Association is hosting on Wednesday, October 18th at 9:00 p.m. The vigil is being held in response to the recent distribution of hate-biased fliers on campus and is intended to show support for the harassed groups.
V. Reports of the Standing Committees
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee - Terry Bazzett
Mathematics 214 (Bulletin, p. 62) The motion to delete Mathematics 214 was unanimously approved.
Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review Committee - Ed Gillin
Policy concerning distribution of course syllabi
Ed Gillin, speaking for the Policy Committee, brought to the floor a motion to make a change in the Academic Affairs section of the Policies and Procedures Manual. (c.f. Bulletin, P. 65). The current version of the Manual reads:
XII. Course Outlines
Each faculty member is required to prepare course outlines, which will contain the following information which will be distributed to the students during the first week of each semester…
The motion was made to change the reading to:
XII. Course Outlines
Each faculty member is required to prepare course outlines, a hard copy of which will be distributed to students during the first week of each semester. The outline will contain the following information…
The motion was unanimously approved.
Faculty Affairs Committee - Maria Lima
M.Lima reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee had discussed the pros and cons of local and national SOFI forms. The committee seeks to define exactly what the SOFI should measure and plans to focus on this issue at its next meeting on Oct. 24, at 4pm, room to be announced.
Student Affairs Committee - JeeLoo Liu
J.L.Liu reported that the SAC has met twice since the last Senate meeting.
The committee plans to meet with Tom Bell from CAS to discuss the issues of the cost of Smart cards and the quality of food service on campus.
The committee has divided into several subgroups to work on different projects. The first is the Union renovation. Any major renovation of the Union will involve the removal of asbestos. This could lead to the Union being closed down for a year and could be quite costly. However, there seems to be consensus that the Union, especially the Ballroom, needs renovation. One subgroup will meet with Kathy Trainor to come up with a proposed plan for this renovation. The second project has to do with an empirical study of bias or discrimination on campus. The committee is in the process of designing a suitable survey form. Once it is approved, in-class surveys will be conducted. There will also be a web link set up for students to participate in the survey.
Finally, the committee plans to investigate student satisfaction with faculty involvement outside of the classroom. The issues to be examined are the quality of advisement, the availability of faculty during office hours, etc. If existing problems are identified, the committee will make suggestions for improvement.
The minutes of the first two committee meetings can be found in Senate Bulletins 4 and 6.
Graduate Affairs Committee - Judy Bushnell
J.Bushnell reported that she would be contacting committee members to meet next Tuesday.
VI. New Business
T.Macula objected to the earlier motion about electronic voting, saying that the motion had been "rushed," and that the issue was worth campus-wide discussion and warranted a Constitutional amendment. President Dahl asked if the Executive Committee had not already had extensive discussion on the topic. C.Leary replied yes. J.Bushnell said that she was not unsympathetic to T.Macula's concerns but that there was not a need for a Constitutional amendment, since the Constitution does not specify that elections must be carried out on paper. E.Wallace asked Chris Leary to specify exactly what the Constitution said. Chris referred to Article 1 of The Bylaws, Section 1, Subsection C, Subsubsections 1,2, and 3, saying that there was nothing to prevent the change. B.Gohlman, Parliamentarian for the Senate, asked if the issue was worth two readings. Chris replied no because it's not a change in policy. G.Hartvigsen then said that the Senate as a body had voted and the motion had passed, so no further discussion occurred.
VII. Report of the Intersession/Summer Session Task Force - Bob O'Donnell, guest
The report of the task force is found in the Bulletin, pp. 44-50. Bob O'Donnell, representing the task force, said that the compiled data from the surveys can be found in the Senate office. He summarized the main findings and recommendations of the task force. One major recommendation is that the salary for teaching summer classes be raised to a level "worth the time and effort." The students desire that courses be guaranteed so that they are better able to make plans, and so the committee recommends that certain courses, those with a "track record", be guaranteed. Others could be listed as "offered if demand is sufficient", but at least the students would know the status or potential status of the course.
Bob said that years ago, the money from summer school was profit. Currently, some of the funds are diverted to the library, etc. He said that the college may need to reshift funds to provide more support for the summer school.
The study of Intersession found two views. One view was that it be eliminated and the semester be moved to begin earlier in January. The other view was that the three weeks in January are useful for preparation, refreshment, etc. Currently, the number of courses and participating students is small. The recommendation is that the program be reevaluated and either made stronger or that the college move away from supporting it. To make the program stronger, suggestions were made to allow one- or two-credit classes, to examine the salary for teaching these classes, to consider internships, intensive labs, and remedial work, and to look at other ways to compensate professors. For example, loads could be reduced in the Spring or Fall semesters. Another suggestion was made to offer courses over the Internet. M.Lima asked how we could make sure that some of these recommendations are implemented. C.Leary replied that decisions would be made on an administrative level. Provost Dixon said that she'd had feedback even before the task force had been commissioned and that she had asked Department Chairs to plan a three-year sequence of what courses to offer in the summer. Such longer-reaching plans would help make the administration more willing to guarantee certain courses. Departments can opt out of participating, but that is still useful information. G.Hartvigsen said that it would be helpful to know the financial incentive. The Provost replied that she would like to see the programmatic approach first. She also noted that sending summer school funds to the library dated back to a time when faculty cuts had been mandated. A large amount ($92,000) was used to save faculty lines and had to be found somewhere else. S.Kirsh asked if the programs would recruit students from the Rochester area. Bob replied that yes, that was a recommendation but he noted the challenges in competing with community colleges that might be cheaper and have a more extensive offering of courses. P.Pacheco said that, based on his experience with a summer anthropology course, flexibility was important. Bob O'Donnell responded that the task force would like to see more freedom in such things as course length that would allow for a greater number of options. He also noted that a successful summer school would require thinking about "the environment" in terms of entertainment and activities and suggested that there be work study positions available. W.Pogozelski asked if the same regulations that are used for new courses during the two semesters apply to summer and Intersession courses. Dean Greenfield applied in the affirmative. President Dahl then reminded the Senate of the history of the task force and stressed the "value of Bob's committee". He said that the discussions had gone across all boundaries and had been a "successful hybrid." The task force was thanked for its work.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.