College Senate Bulletin

State University of New York at Geneseo

College of Arts and Sciences

 

Correspondence to Dennis Showers, School of Education, South 222C, showers@geneseo.edu, 245-5264

Note: Page numbers indicate pages as per the paper copy of the Bulletins.




Bulletin No. 5

 

Bulletin No. 5

Pages 57-72

January 26, 2011


Contents

Topic                                                           Page

Executive Committee: 10/5/10 meeting minutes 58

Faculty Affairs Committee: 11/9/10 meeting minutes 60

Research Council: 11/12/10 meeting minutes 62

Policy Committee: 11/23/10 meeting minutes 64

Student Affairs Committee11/30/10 meeting minutes 67

Research Council: 12/3/10 meeting minutes 68

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: 1/25/11 meeting minutes 69

Senate: 2/1/11 agenda 71






  1. Executive Committee Meeting

  2. October 5, 2010


  1.  
    1. Call to Order

4:02 pm


Adoption of the Agenda


Reports

  1.  
    1.  
      1. President Christopher Dahl

      2. Chancellor Zimpher will be on campus for a GOLD Seminar.


Kim Harvey and Chip Matthews won an award from the Association of College Unions International.


President Dahl also reported that SUNY will probably not get the $638 million cut back and that the Chancellor acknowledges the unique character of SUNY campuses, so all 6 (SUNY) Big Ideas are not applicable or appropriate for all campuses.


The Geneseo Research Council wants to make changes to its governance especially committees and department representation. President Dahl will make the final decision regarding this. The proposed changes are intended to allow the council to encourage and offer incentive for research.


President Dahl will hold first budget forum at 2:30 pm on October 15, 2010.


Geneseo is continuing its efforts to make campus climate for GLBT community accepting and safe. The privacy policy is also being examined for areas of improvement

  1.  
    1.  

      1. Questions: Undergraduate Curricula Committee Chair Bob Owens (Communicative Disorders and Sciences) offered to give safe zone training to any department, class, or organization who wants it. Tom Sochia added that 125 students came to the Pride Alliance and that the campus community is asked to wear purple on October 20 to remember students who have recently committed suicide.

      2.  


Provost Carol Long

The Provost reported that the Provost's Office is continuing to work with departments regarding the discussion of the proposed transition from a five course per semester course load to a four course per semester course load. A committee is being formed to examine the content and administration of SOFIs.


The Provost is continuing work on how to deal with retirements, so they cause as little disruption to the college as possible.


She also reported that the college is seeking to develop an internship in Washington DC for Science and Policy. This will be a good opportunity. She is working with the Research Council on efforts to increase the research capacity of the campus. There is work being done to increase the national recognition of our faculty by seeking and supporting nominations for national awards.

Discussion is underway concerning forming an office of undergraduate research.

Provost Long acknowledged the seven students and 2 faculty who attended and presented at COPLAC. Geneseo is also represented at CUR at the Library of Congress.


The Provost announced that Dr. Ysaye Barnwell (Geneseo alumnae) will be returning to campus to lead a community sing. All even the “non-musical” are encouraged to attend.

 

Chair Dennis Showers

Chair Showers reports that the College Senate is working with the campus bookstore (Follet) to resolve identified issues regarding ordering and delivery. He met with the committee that was tasked with examining the idea and possible establishment of a faculty assembly as an addition to our campus governance structure.


He and other representatives from the college will be serving on the SUNY Innovation Team established by Chancellor Zimpher.


Students Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Over asked about straw poll regarding txploration of the formation of faculty Assembly last year. Chair Showers reported the results: 69 in favor and 21 against.

 

Vice-Chair Duane McPherson

Duane McPherson reported that he has received nominations of faculty for awards and is waiting for designate/invite committee members. McPherson will meet with Student Affairs Vice President Tom Sochia and President Dahl for assistance in identifying possible members. He will be sending out congratulations to nominees as well.


Past-Chair David Granger

No report.


Secretary Brian Morgan

No report.

 

Treasurer Aaron Steinhauer

Treasurer Steinhauer suggested that discussion begin about formalizing College Senate fundraising.


University Faculty Senator Gregg Hartvigsen

University Faculty Senator Hartvigsen reported that he and Chair Showers will be attending a UFS conference at Alfred State.

 

Vice President, Student Assoc. Thomas Sochia

He reported that he has met with students about budget advocacy and possible steps toward that.


  1.  
    1. Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curricula Bob Owens

There are 23 items coming up before the College Senate.


Undergraduate Policies Leigh O’Brien

The committee will be meeting on October 26 to discuss old and new issues.

 

  1.  
    1.  
      1. Graduate Academic Affairs Doug MacKenzie

The meeting of this committee is scheduled for October 14. Three items will be coming up before the College Senate.


Student Affairs Jeff Over

The Student Affairs Committee will meet October 26 to discuss old business held over from last year.


Faculty Affairs James McLean

The Faculty Affairs Committee will meet with Julie Rao to discuss moving SOFI administration to the Banner system.


The committee will include Provost Long in this discussion.


  1.  
    1. Old Business

Associate Dean Savi Iyer proposed a fixed calendar for UCC and GCC. It was agreed that this warranted further study and work. Bob Owens offered clarification of regularization of the course proposal process.


New Business

None


Adjournment

5:00


Respectfully submitted, Brian Morgan


Minutes of the Faculty Affairs Committee

November 11, 2010

Present: J. McLean (Chair), J. Allen, J. Behrend, T. Bowersox, J. Dolce, A. M. Lauriclla, J. Lewis, P. Liwanag, E. Savellos, A. Sheldon, B. Swoger, S. Derne, R. Kahrs


Guest: Provost Carol Long


Call to Order

J. McLean called the meeting to order at 4:04 PM.


Adoption of the Agenda – no objections


  1. Chair’s Report:


  • Request for someone to take minutes for our next meeting on study day. No one volunteers. Someone can volunteer via email or we will call for volunteers at the beginning of our next meeting.

  • From the executive committee – the idea of having universal calendar for senate committee meetings (standard schedule with adjustments as needed) was adopted. FAC has had responsibility for academic calendars in the past. Will make up this calendar at our next meeting.

  • Also at our next meeting, we will need to revise the instructions to accompany the SOFIs, based on the instructions that were drafted by FAC when the SOFIs were administered on paper.


2. Old Business:


PER form discussion:

  • In spring 2009 the college senate approved recommended changes.

  • Text of everything was sent to FAC members via email.


Provost Long: Administration’s viewpoint.


Comment about the length of time between senate approval and implementation:

First, the provost hadn’t seen the revised form until she had been here for a year. In addition, the departmental guidelines have been slowly trickling in (she just received the final ones recently). These guidelines have already been put into use by the Faculty Personal Committee to help them in their deliberations about tenure and promotion.


The Provost is unsure about some of the variation in these reports. Is there value in discussing some of these variations? (See additional comments below)


There was also some confusion about the revised form H (Provost Long hadn’t seen it, not quite sure what was to happen next with the form). It was not her intention to ignore the issue. Significant effort was needed simply to find a copy of the revised form (going back to task force minutes, etc.). Our committee structure not as connected as it might be.


Looking forward:

Provost Long thinks the revised form H is good. No objections. Will confirm with President Dahl about his thoughts. She didn’t anticipate any big problems from the administration’s point of view in implementing the form. Since things are already in process for this year, she recommended delaying the change until next year.


J. McLean asked – FAC is recommending the form, but it is the prerogative of the administration to adopt it. Will they do any revisions?

Provost Long: Perhaps some tweaks, but she didn’t anticipate any big changes. Going forward, if any changes are desired by the administration, the Provost would plan to consult with the FAC about them.


A comment from Provost Long – The structure of committees on campus seems to create a disconnect between administration and faculty. She wants to work closer with faculty regarding decision making. “Partner in faculty thinking and faculty action”


Discussion about the revised form

Provost Long likes the introduction and especially teacher/scholar statement. She finds the percentages listed helpful, despite the fact that they don’t appear elsewhere on the form. (“Productivity will be evaluated according to teaching (50%), contributions to the discipline (35%), and service (15%). “) They will be most helpful for the folks standing for evaluation.


Feedback to the candidate (“Upon completion of the PER form, a copy is to be provided to the candidate. The Department Personnel Committee and Department Chair shall meet with the candidate to review the completed PER forms.”) This is very good (and was not always provided to the candidate historically). The form should provide an evaluation but also suggestions for improvement (and this would be provided to the candidate). Formative feedback important. Her understanding is that department committees and chairs do not consistently meet with candidates. This seems to be the case.


Question: Is it acceptable for just one member of the committee to meet with the candidate?

Answer: FAC members seem to be in agreement that this would be acceptable.


Question: Are there situations where this might be too difficult (especially within a certain timeframe, as set by some departments)? Are there advantages to not having this conversation?

Answer: Meetings are more important for early renewals, rather then the tenure decision (when the provost/FPC get involved). There were concerns about the meeting requirement slowing down the process.

Follow up question: When does that meeting have to happen? Does this meeting have to take place before the paperwork goes up to admin?

Answer emerging from discussion: As it stands, this could take place after the form goes up, because this requirement isn’t part of a comment/reply process at this stage. The idea of providing written and in-person feedback is an attempt to deal with longstanding differences in departments concerning requirements about feedback. Departments could have timing requirements regarding this meeting.


The PER form relies heavily on departmental guidelines, which have just been completed. This information was given to the provost in part to deal with some departments whose practices lie far outside of expectations. FPC used departmental guidelines in their deliberations last spring.


The Provost would like to have an opportunity to ask questions about some of differences in departmental guidelines (including both department variations in procedures and criteria, the latter is much more complicated). Perhaps this should be a discussion for both the FPC and FAC? These guidelines are currently available via myCourses to the FPC and the group for Department chairs. Should the Provost make them available to FAC as well? A suggestion made to make them available campus wide. Apparently some are already available on department websites (although possibly buried).


Some questions about the criteria come down to simply how much detail is provided, other questions concern recognizing differences in scholarship. The Provost suggests looking at some equivalence of effort and some discussion about how new trends in publication (electronic, peer review, open access, etc.) might effect the criteria. She suggests that a little bit more standardization would be good (but recognizes that criteria don’t have to be uniform). Since the tenure and promotion decisions are really college decisions (not just departmental decisions) she would like to standardize the criteria a bit. Provost Long recognizes that this is a tough issue to deal with, but discussion will help. One strategy would be to deal with the outliers (you know them when you see them).


Question about the numbers used in the current evaluation system: S. Derne asked if we could just implement that change this year (eliminate the old system). Provost Long indicated that wouldn’t be a good idea since it would create complications. There was general agreement that there are lots of problems with numbers between departments, and variation from year to year within departments.


Other related issues

We should think about changes to the way we get external reviewers. At the moment, a simple list of names from the candidate and possibly the department chair is provided. One suggested change would be for candidates to provide a brief description indicating the relationship of the reviewer to the candidate relationship. Another change would be asking for external reviewers for tenure and promotion to associate in addition to just promotion to full professor.


3. New Business


Questions for the provost about the 5 to 4 shift.


J. McLean – Communication from SUNY Central indicated that credit equivalency was linked to meeting hours. How might that effect the proposed change?

Provost Long: There is a SUNY wide reporting system for curricular data (including class meeting times). This data is used as a part of the master planning process (facilities, etc.). The requirements provide a range of class meeting minutes and their credit hour equivalency. Binghamton has a 4-course load. We need to work out some of these issues. Some pressure applied to Binghamton from SUNY (in the wake of the pressure on for-profit colleges) about their class time, but this seems to have waned. Since they have worked out a plan, we hope to learn from them. In addition, there is pressure for transfer mobility (ability to make sure that credits transfer), and that is something Geneseo will be working on.


J. Lewis – Are we moving to the 4 course load? Right now Biology has 800 majors, and lots of work. The idea of spending tons of time working out the details for the switch to a four course load and then not making the change does not encourage us to get this plan completed.

Provost Long: As a personal response, she is hopeful that we will make the switch. Consensus seems to be moving in the direction of change, but she is hesitant to be firm that we are changing. She is unsure that she knows enough about each department’s situation to know whether the changes will be good/bad/indifferent. Creating the plan for the Gen Ed curriculum will be very helpful. Departments have the option of submitting multiple plans for examination.


S. Derne – What about the role of academic minors. Should we streamline these or eliminate them?

Provost Long: There are different preferences of between departments. In general, the world at large likes credentials. Our goal would be to look to departments for reasonable ways to structure the minor. If there isn’t rational for the minor and it is just a hodge-podge of classes, they might not be worth that much. In the end, there will still be room for minors.



Adjournment

James McLean adjourned the meeting at 5:10 PM.

Respectfully submitted, B. Swoger



Research Council Minutes

12 November 2010

Members Present: Michael Lynch, Gene Stelzig, Ben Laabs, Lori Bernard, Doug MacKenzie, Chris Leary, Paul Pacheco, Doug Baldwin, Meredith Harrigan, Jenny Apple, Jennifer Rogalsky, Savi Iyer, Justin Behrend, Kazu Yokoyama, Farooq Sheikh, Dave Parfitt, Anne Baldwin

Discussion:

  1. Dean Johnston Student Research Assistantships

    1. Ranks for the seven Dean Johnston Student Research Assistantship applications were tallied and the three awardees identified.



  1. Revision of the Research Council Constitution

  1. Changes as indicated in the draft handed out by Michael Lynch were approved unanimously. Michael will send on the revised version to Dennis Showers.



  1. Update on Fund for Institutionally-Directed Initiatives

  1. Michael informed the Council of the Provost’s request, which he has agreed to, to use $6,750 from the fund for a one-time commitment of partial support for four SUNY Geneseo internships at The Washington Center.

  2. After discussion, the Council expressed general agreement with the decision, but requested that Anne Baldwin ask the Provost (1) if they might see the original proposal sent from The Washington Center, (2) how the students will be chosen, and (3) whether the Research Council may see the applications or be involved in choosing the students.



  1. CUR Dialogues, February 2011

  1. Emilye Crosby and Chris Leary will represent the Research Council at the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) Dialogues meeting in February of 2011. The Dialogues meeting is a good opportunity to meet sponsor representatives. Dave Parfitt may also attend.

  2. Chris spoke briefly about his reasons for wishing to attend.



  1. Proposal Course Release Applications

  1. Anne informed the Council that, as of that morning, there were three applications that she was aware of.

  2. Michael will send out a request to the full Council to schedule a voting meeting during the week of November 29th – December 2nd.

  3. In the future a subcommittee may be formed to review these applications.

  4. Anne will check all applications to determine whether they meet the criteria for a “major” proposal, with an award value of $25,000 or more.

  5. Due to possible IFR allocation restrictions, Anne suggested awarding two course releases for Fall 2011 and three for Spring 2012 in the next round, due March 25, 2011.



  1. Software Needs for Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activities

  1.  
    1. Michael noted that he had received some responses from Council members regarding the availability of research software funds within their departments, and that most indicated that there were limited or no funds available.

    2. The Council unanimously approved the decision to issue a call for software requests to the faculty at large.

    3. The Council reviewed the draft call for software requests developed by Anne. Several changes were discussed and agreed upon, including a change of deadline date to January 28, 2011, and the suggestion that, if funds are remaining after the spring deadlines, the funds devoted to this initiative be capped. Anne will re-draft the text of the request and send it to Michael for review before it is sent out.



  1. Subcommittees and Working Groups

  1.  
    1. Michael noted that he had received responses to his query for subcommittee/working group assignments and that there did not seem to be much interest in idea of a working group for a summer proposal writing institute or similar initiative.

    2. There was general discussion about different possibilities for supporting faculty members in proposal writing, during both the academic year and summer, including a CUR institute on campus, incentive-based programs, sponsor-specific workshops (e.g. Fulbright fellowships), and writing groups.

    3. Michael suggested that perhaps a working group might be formed to address the more general question of what can be done to more actively support grant proposal writing.

    4. Michael will send out another request to Council members to ascertain preference for subcommittees/working groups.



  1. Other Items for Future Consideration

  1.  
    1. Michael noted that Anne would like any feedback on the Sponsored Research web site with regard to possible improvements.

    2. Michael also noted that the Council might consider using potential unused funds for Presidential Summer Fellowships to support additional fellowships for tenured faculty members.



The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM.



Submitted by Michael Lynch.

Minutes of the Committee on Undergraduate Policies, Core, and Review

23 November, 2010


Present: C Leary, J Kernan, P Hamilton-Rodgers, D Farthing, M Lima, K McKeever, K Davies-Hoffman, M Rogachefsky, B Ahmad, A Tajima, K Hannam, & L O'Brien, Chair


Guests: McPherson, D


Chair O'Brien called the meeting to order at 4:03.


The first order of business was a proposal from the Dean of the College's office concerning Satisfactory Progress, Academic Probation, and Academic Dismissal.


There was discussion about particulars in the proposal. It was asked whether suspension should be a consequence of not making satisfactory progress for four consecutive semesters, and Dean McKeever said no, that the current language helps to keeps students from “gaming” the system. Other comments focused on the difference between Progress Warning letters and Academic Warning letters (the two letters address the very different ramifications of the two different situations), and the desire of the Dean's Office to help students who are in difficulty figure out what is best for them as quickly and as fairly as possible.


Various wording changes to the document were accepted. One substantive change added a clause stating that students would be dismissed “if after a one semester suspension for failure to make satisfactory progress, their semester GPA falls below 2.0.” All such amendments are noted in the attached policy. All such amendments were accepted unanimously.


After the usual fun of editing in committee, Maria Lima moved that we adopt the amended policy. The motion was seconded by Marty Rogachefsky and passed unanimously.


Duane McPherson then brought to the Committee his suggestion, earlier presented by e-mail, that the Committee take up the question of what would constitute “credit” under a proposed change to a four-course student load. In particular he asked how the courses under a revised curriculum would correspond to the Carnegie Units that are required by SUNY. There was general agreement among members of the Committee that investigating this question would fall under the purview of the Committee. Dean McKeever mentioned that the same question had been of some concern in her office, and that other SUNY schools who have not examined this question are in some difficulty over their lack of attention to this issue. Jim Kernan asked if we would be doing work that the proponents of the proposed change will be doing, and Chair O'Brien suggested that this might be an issue that the Committee would like to discuss with the Provost. Duane McPherson mentioned that the proponents of the shift have not yet addressed this issue properly, and that the Committee ought to exercise due diligence on the question of what constitutes a credit under any change. It was agreed that the Chair would speak with the Provost and see if she would be available to meet with the Committee on this issue.


Chair O’Brien adjourned the meeting at 5:01 p.m.

Satisfactory Progress


Satisfactory Progress is defined as the completion of 75 percent of credit hours enrolled at the beginning of the semester. That is, the ratio of earned to attempted credit hours must be at least 75 percent. Students will be reviewed at the end of each semester and Progress Warning letters will be issued to students who do not meet this requirement. A student who fails to make satisfactory progress for four semesters will be suspended for one semester. A suspended student is expected to complete successfully a minimum of one full-time semester of approved courses at another accredited college before reapplying. Upon readmission, students must complete 12 credit hours during their first semester or they will be subject to academic dismissal. Students are allowed to have attempted up to 150 percent of the total of 120 credits, or a total of 180 credits. After 180 credits, the student is no longer making satisfactory progress. Students working on a second bachelor's degree are allowed to attempt up to 260 credits.


Academic Probation


Students are reviewed for academic probation at the end of each semester and Academic Warning letters will be issued to students if their semester GPA falls below 2.0. Students will be placed on academic probation if their cumulative GPA falls below 2.0. These students will receive probation letters from the Dean of the College. In addition, advisement before registration will be mandated. Students on academic probation for two consecutive semesters will be subject to academic dismissal dismissed.


Academic Dismissal


Students are reviewed for academic dismissal at the end of each semester and will be subject to academic dismissal dismissed (1) if after a one semester suspension for failure to make satisfactory progress, they fail to meet the satisfactory progress requirement during their first semester back at Geneseo, or (2) if after a one semester suspension for failure to make satisfactory progress, their semester GPA falls below 2.0, or (2 3) after two consecutive semesters on academic probation.


Notification of dismissal is sent by mail and email to the student's address on record with the College at the end of the semester. Each student is responsible for informing the College through the Office of Records and Scheduling of updates and changes to contact information.



Note:

  1. Text that is struck through was deleted by amendment during the meeting.

  2. Text that is underlined was added by amendment during the meeting.

  3. A clean copy of the final text follows.



Satisfactory Progress


Satisfactory Progress is defined as the completion of 75 percent of credit hours enrolled at the beginning of the semester. That is, the ratio of earned to attempted credit hours must be at least 75 percent. Students will be reviewed at the end of each semester and Progress Warning letters will be issued to students who do not meet this requirement. A student who fails to make satisfactory progress for four semesters will be suspended for one semester. A suspended student is expected to complete successfully a minimum of one full-time semester of approved courses at another college before reapplying. Upon readmission, students must complete 12 credit hours during their first semester or they will be subject to academic dismissal. Students are allowed to have attempted up to 150 percent of the total of 120 credits, or a total of 180 credits. After 180 credits, the student is no longer making satisfactory progress. Students working on a second bachelor's degree are allowed to attempt up to 260 credits.


Academic Probation


Students are reviewed for academic probation at the end of each semester and Academic Warning letters will be issued to students if their semester GPA falls below 2.0. Students will be placed on academic probation if their cumulative GPA falls below 2.0. These students will receive probation letters from the Dean of the College. In addition, advisement before registration will be mandated. Students on academic probation for two consecutive semesters will be dismissed.


Academic Dismissal


Students are reviewed for academic dismissal at the end of each semester and will be dismissed (1) if after a one semester suspension for failure to make satisfactory progress, they fail to meet the satisfactory progress requirement during their first semester back at Geneseo, or (2) if after a one semester suspension for failure to make satisfactory progress, their semester GPA falls below 2.0, or (3) after two consecutive semesters on academic probation.


Notification of dismissal is sent by mail and email to the student's address on record with the College at the end of the semester. Each student is responsible for informing the College through the Office of Records and Scheduling of updates and changes to contact information.




Respectfully submitted,

 

Chris Leary


Student Affairs Committee Minutes

30 November 2010


Attending: Lauren Abdallah, Victoria Farmer, Hye-Yeon Jeong, Ashley Lewis, James McGarrah, Paul McLaughlin, Tyler Ocon, Jeff Over - Chair, Patrick Rault, Lauren Taraska, excused Cheryll Kreutter


The meeting was called to order at 4:02.


The committee has taken on the task of determining how students perceive the proposed college course shift from a base 40 course 120 credit degree program to a 30 course 120 credit degree program. This change will require a reduction in courses either in common core requirements, electives in the major, requirements in the major, general electives, or some modular change where there are four credit or two credit classes. The goal of the meeting was to: 1) develop questions to address student focus groups to determine student perception on the impact of the proposed course shift; 2) determine the makeup of the focus groups; and 3) formulate a guide for the focus group moderator(s) in regard to group size, talking points, and method of determining outcomes.


1) Discussion questions:

Impact of course change on:

a. common core

b. major requirements

c. major electives

d. extracurricular activities

e. interaction with faculty

f. student workload

g. ability to complete multiple majors/minors

h. incorporation of service learning in curriculum

i. high impact learning opportunities


2) Focus Groups

The plan is to solicit names of 3-5 students, for the most part seniors, from Department Chairs and Deans of Schools of the College for invitation to the focus group discussions that will be separated along division lines, where it is expected to have 15 to 20 participants per focus group. The six groups will be [committee steering person(s)]:

a. Presidential Scholars (James McGarrah)

b. Social Sciences (Paul McLaughlin and Hye-Yeon Jeong)

c. Humanities (Lauren Taraska)

d. Fine Arts (Jeff Over and Ashley Lewis)

e. Natural Sciences (Patrick Rault)

f. Professional Programs (Victoria Farmer/Marilyn Klotz and Lauren Abdallah)


3) The focus group attendees will be given the background information for the proposed curriculum change and links to department discussion and plans for curricular changes available on the Provost website. Main points for discussion with time limits will be written on a board in the forum room, where a list of pros and cons for each focus question will be developed. Consensus points and views of vocal minorities will be gathered for later discussion by the committee.


Focus groups will meet in late January or early February, final report and presentation to College Senate in March 2011.


Meeting adjourned at 4:55.



Respectfully submitted,



D. Jeffrey Over - Chair, Student Affairs


Research Council Minutes

3 December 2010

Members Present: Michael Lynch, Jenny Apple, Lori Bernard, Ken Deutsch, Ted Everett, Meredith Harrigan, Savi Iyer, Ben Laabs, Doug MacKenzie, Paul Pacheco, Jennifer Rogalsky, Gene Stelzig, Kazu Yokoyama, Traci Phillips, Anne Baldwin

Discussion:

  1. Michael Lynch expressed the Research Council’s support, solidarity, and appreciation for its colleagues in Communicative Disorders, Computer Science, and Studio Arts. During this hard time, the Council cares deeply about its colleagues.



  1. Proposal Writing Course Release Applications

  1. This was the initial round of applications for this new program.

  2. Tallied ranks for the three applications received were announced by Michael. There was a clear preference for one of the applications and the remaining two applications were ranked similarly in second and third place.

  3. There was general discussion of possible additional criteria for reviewing applications, including likelihood of funding, possible impact on college and students, and possible preference for faculty members who had or had not previously received external funding. Paul Pacheco noted that the Council had intentionally created broad criteria for the program. The discussion continued, however no changes to the guidelines were made, nor any specific additional criteria adopted.

  4. Related to the possibility that a faculty member receiving an award might decide to significantly alter their planned proposal, Michael noted that the Council would reserve the right to review any substantial changes to proposal course release plans.

  5. There was general discussion regarding strengths and weaknesses of the applications.

  6. Discussion then turned to the issue of funding only one application or two.

  7. A motion to fund only the highest-ranked application was voted on. There were nine votes in favor and four against, with no abstentions. Those voting against the motion preferred to fund two applications.

  8. Anne Baldwin will ask the faculty member with the highest-ranked application for permission to share it with other applicants.

  9. Feedback to the applicants who did not receive awards will be provided by Michael and Anne.

  10. The Spring application deadline for course release award proposals will be March 25, 2011.



  1. Subcommittees and Working Groups

  1. Michael noted that the membership of the Subcommittees and Working Groups have been determined, per his prior email to the Council members.

  2. Changes in subcommittee membership will be effective in January.

  3. Michael will email suggestions and information to the Chairs of the Working Groups for an Office of Undergraduate Research and Support of Grant Writing.



  1. Research Council constitution

    1. A revision of the constitution has been reviewed by Dennis Showers and sent to President Dahl for his approval.


Council members were thanked for their service this semester. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM.


Submitted by Michael Lynch.


Minutes of Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

January 25, 2011


UCC members present: M. Stolee (chair), A. Watkins, B. Semel, A. Hernandez, K. Adabra, R. Coloccia, J. Kirkwood, T. Bazzett, S. Iyer, J. Aimers, B. Harrison, G. Marcus, J. Lovett, S. Brainard


Guests: A. Tajima, D. Geiger


Chair Meg Stolee called the meeting to order at 4:07 PM.


Stolee thanked Bob Owens for his years of service to the Senate and UCC especially. As new chair of the committee, Meg asked members and guests to introduce themselves. Savi Iyer thanked Stolee for agreeing to chair the committee.


Stolee reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee is working on a boilerplate calendar, with the aim to hold committee meetings enough in advance of Senate meetings to allow chairs and secretaries to submit minutes without a frantic rush. Currently, there can be timing issues resulting from committees needing to meet one week before the Bulletin needs to be out.


Future UCC meetings will be held 2/15/2011 and 3/8/2011. Departmental proposals are due in the Dean’s office by 2/15/2011.


Discussion of Proposals


Biology:


BIOL 304: DNA Biotechnology. Course revision: Title and Description Change. Title becomes Biotechnology; course description is modified to add topics such as recombinant DNA technology, genomics, bioremediation, forensic analysis, regulations and ethics, to delete topics such as gene therapy, pharmaceutical application, and human genome project. The rationale is to update the course content and title because of the expansion of Biotechnology beyond just DNA techniques. PASSED.


BIOL 390: Biological Techniques. Course revision: Title, Syllabus/Requirements, and Description. New title is Molecular Techniques. The new description changes the focus to “Laboratory exercises include DNA, RNA, an protein manipulations, web-based sequence analysis, and the use of associated apparatus. Lectures cover background information of the techniques and their applications.” A former slot course is becoming an individual laboratory course. PASSED.


BIOL 391: Electron Microscopy. New Course: “A project-based course designed to help students acquire the skills required in electron microscopy.” Credits 2(0-6). This new course is an individual lab course coming from the previous slot course. PASSED.


BIOL 392: Genome Analysis. New Course: “This course examines and utilizes modern experimental strategies to study DNA, RNA, and protein….Topics covered will be discussed with respect to modern questions in genomics, molecular genetics, and biochemistry.” Credits 2(1-3). This new course is an individual lab course coming from the previous slot course. PASSED.


BIOL 394: Neurobiology Techniques. New Course. “An introduction to the methods and experimental strategies used to explore the structure and function of the nervous system”…including “anatomical methods for identification of neuronal projections, staining to reveal neuronal form, and immunocytochemistry to identify neurotransmitters, receptors, and other molecular structures.” Credits 2(1-3) This new course is an individual lab course coming from the previous slot course. PASSED.


Chemistry:


CHEM 120: General Chemistry I. Course Deletion. PASSED.


CHEM 121: N/General Chemistry I Laboratory. Course Deletion. PASSED.


CHEM 122: General Chemistry II. Course Deletion. PASSED.


CHEM 202: Honors Introductory Chemistry. New Course. Course is designed for the well-prepared science major and may be taken in place of CHEM 116 and 118. Prerequisite = successful completion of a chemistry course beyond the NYS regent’s course or permission of instructor. Credits 4 (4-0). PASSED.


There was discussion regarding the title of the course, since the course is not part of
the college’s Honors Program and could cause confusion. Several Math courses, it was pointed out, are also called Honors yet are not part of the official Honors Program. Savi Iyer from the Dean’s office reported that there is confusion with this and the Math department is considering changing those titles. A friendly amendment was proposed calling for the department to consult with the Dean’s office regarding the appropriateness of the name.


Communication:


COMN 207: Writing for Business and the Professions. New Course. “This course focuses on traditional and contemporary methods of written business communication.” Not for students required to take INTD 205. Credits 3 (3-0). WITHDRAWN.


There was discussion about the use of the word “professions” in the title of this course. While to some “professions” mean medicine, dental, and law, the Communications Department hopes to attract students in professions related to Business, such as Public Relations. The department will consider the friendly amendment of a name change that clearly indicates what kind of writing will be covered in the class, and will resubmit the proposal.


COMN 349: Advanced Issues in Personal and Professional Communication. Revised course; revision is title and description change. New title is Advanced Issues in Personal and Professional Communication: Subtitle. This becomes a slot course, and students may take it more than once under a different title. PASSED.


Old/New Business


A committee member asked Stolee to comment on a recent resolution regarding UCC that came to the Executive Committee. Stolee reported that the Exec Committee considered a proposal that would require UCC to refuse to consider – at this time - any course or program proposal that would be part of the 5 to 4 conversion currently being explored by the college. The proposal was defeated in Exec Committee on the grounds that the proposal was premature and, given current oversight procedures, unnecessary. Since the proposal did not pass the Exec Committee, it has not and will not come to UCC.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 PM.


Respectfully submitted,

Sue Ann Brainard



N. B. Senators who wish to read the full proposals may go to http://boxes.geneseo.edu/DeanofCollege/doc/UCC_pending/

Agenda for Senate Meeting

February 1, 2011

Call to Order

Adoption of the Agenda

Adoption of the Minutes


Senate Reports

President Christopher Dahl

Provost Carol Long

Chair Dennis Showers

Vice Chair Duane McPherson

Past-Chair David Granger

Treasurer Aaron Steinhauer

University Faculty Senator Gregg Hartvigsen

Vice President, Student Assoc. Thomas Scochia


Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curricula Meg Stolee

First Reading:


New Courses

BIOL 391: Electron Microscopy

BIOL 392: Genome Analysis

BIOL 394: Neurobiology Techniques

CHEM 202: Honors Introductory Chemistry

Please note: there may be a forthcoming title change.


Revised Courses

BIOL 304: DNA Biotechnology

BIOL 390: Biological Techniques

COMN 349: Advanced Issues in Personal and Professional Communication


Deleted Courses

CHEM 120: General Chemistry I

CHEM 121: N/General Chemistry I Laboratory

CHEM 122: General Chemistry II

Undergraduate Policies Leigh O’Brien

Graduate Academic Affairs Doug MacKenzie

Student Affairs Jeff Over

Faculty Affairs James McLean


Old Business

New Business

Adjournment