College Senate
Minutes of the Meeting of September 11th, 2000
Chair Gee called the meeting to order at 4:06PM.
1. The agenda was approved unanimously.
2. Approval of the minutes.
Dick Reddy: Just a brief word of discussion on the minutes. As College Senate Secretary it's my job to try to make certain that the minutes get into your hands in as good a shape as possible. But we have depended in the past couple of years, three years at this point, on an absolutely wonderful student, Michael Anton Sciortino, to be working on these sorts of things. He has been of great assistance in providing an initial transcript of our meetings. And Michael is here and I personally would like to applaud him. (general applause. )
The minutes of the April 17th, 2000 meeting were approved unanimously.
The minutes of the May 1st, 2000 meeting were approved unanimously.
The minutes of the May 8th, 2000 meeting were approved unanimously.
3. a. Chairperson Nancy Gee (Chairperson's report):
OK, on to my report. The first item on my report is parliamentary procedures, and I would like to remind everyone one that Dick Reddy has graciously agreed to serve as not only secretary, but also parliamentarian, so he will be addressing those kinds of questions for us. I would also like to point out that you have a handout on parliamentary procedures. We presented this to you last semester as a draft. We asked if there were any comments, questions, or changes, to please send those to us. Given that there were none, we are now adopting the document.
I would also like to remind everyone, that when I call on you, please state your name. It helps us to have accurate minutes.
3. b. The second item on my report, elections for Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. Elections for Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate will take place in the October Senate Meeting. Election for the Secretary will be conducted in the General Election, which will be run by the Governance Committee. All three of these are one-year terms starting in January. And I would like to now call for nominations from the floor for each of these positions. Personally, I would like to make a nomination of Jackie Swansinger for Chair of the Senate. Where's Jackie? Do you agree?
Jackie Swansinger: Yeah, I agree.
Would anyone else like to be nominated, or to nominate somebody for Chair of the Senate?
OK, how about Vice Chair of the Senate? Is anyone interested in this position? You can nominate someone else, or you can nominate yourself...
OK, finally Secretary. Is anyone interested in the Secretary position?
OK. As I stated, the election for Chair and Vice Chair will take place in the Senate in October, so please get nominations to me as soon as possible for the Chair and the Vice Chair. For the Secretary, get those nominations to Charlie Davis.
3. c. The third item on my report are the Senate date changes. The October meeting will be held three weeks from today on October 2nd, because the original date conflicted with Yom Kippur and also Columbus Day, so it has been moved up a week. The May meeting was originally scheduled for the Monday following finals week. And given that I didn't think anybody would actually come, we rescheduled that one to Monday, May 7th.
The final thing, I didn't have it listed on my report, is I would like to just take a moment to express my gratitude to all of you for coming to those special sessions that we had last semester, to the GCP Committee, to all of the Senators and guests, for all that hard work we did last semester. So, you all deserve a round of applause. ( general applause)
4. President Dennis Hefner (President's report):
Welcome back. It's nice to be here at the first College Senate meeting of the year. It looks like you've got a pretty full agenda, so I'll make it nice and quick. I want to give you a quick update on where we are on enrollment. We're not at census yet. That will be a week from Tuesday, but, at the moment, we are about 75 head count ahead of last year. That's what we were looking to come in at. And we will be about 25 FTE over target. Last year you may recall, we were considerably over on headcount and we were also 74 FTE over target last year, so we were trying not to come in quite so far over. So it looks like we're going to slide in right about exactly where we wanted to be.
We also have an increase again in graduate student enrollment. That's the largest growth category for this year, just as it was last year, both in percentage terms and in absolute numbers. It's is another fairly big spurt in graduate enrollment.
For those of you who have been anxiously awaiting the tennis courts, well, your wait is almost over. Come Wednesday night, the lights should be on. I've been told the nets should be up, is that right, the nets are going to be up Wednesday, so you can go out there Wednesday night. It's supposed to be very cold, so you'll want to run around a lot around the courts, but the lights are going to be on Wednesday night. It's all set, and they're just waiting for the surface to settle. They had set four days, and tomorrow will be the end of the four days and then they'll get everything set up on Wednesday. So we'll have those available.
The Learning Center, I was just told as I was walking in, has now opened for business and you can tell your students, if they're wondering about the Learning Center, it's all set up on the fourth floor of the library.
I did also want to let you know that we will have an announcement coming out this Thursday. There will be a little bit more construction money. Not a big one; don't get excited; not big: more than a million, but less than two million. We were hoping for eighteen million, but we're still working on that. But at least we have a little announcement on a little bit more for construction. I can't say any more than that. I've got to wait until Thursday and it'll probably be in the paper Friday morning.
My office is conducting a search right now. This is for the interim Affirmative Action Director. If you know of anyone, be sure to get those nominations in. It closes sometime this week; I don't know which day. The interviews will start soon. So, if you have someone you'd like to nominate, please get them in. For those who don't know, Sandra Lewis has taken a years leave and she's gone up to UB to work on her doctorate in mathematics, so she is a grad student for this year.
There will be a memo coming out later this week. This is on the dial-up access. I did receive a recommendation from the subcommittee and ITAB and the Interim Associate Vice President for Information Technology and from the Academic Vice President recommending the elimination of dial-up access. I am going to go ahead and accept that recommendation. That will take effect on January 15th of 2001. I don't want people having to worry about making changes during the middle of this semester and so forth, but there will be more in the memo.
There also will be a special night; I believe it's October 10th, that's also in the memo, when ISP providers will be available for three hours on campus in the Williams Center. And we have six; there are actually six providers of dial-up access within just the Fredonia community alone. So, we are trying to talk them into giving us a special campus rate for individuals. But that memo is coming out and I wanted to let you know, so you didn't get it in a day or two and say, "well why didn't you say that in the meeting?" It's over being copied right now.
The Enrollment Management Committee is off and running. I think it's going to be a good committee. We're excited about the possibilities that the mission review money gives us to truly move up in our selectivity. That would be very helpful. You probably noted that in US News and World Report we dropped a little bit in the rankings. This was not unexpected. In fact, I honestly thought we were going to start dropping last year, but this year it hit us even harder. We had a seven percent drop in graduation rates. This is based on what was happening six years ago. It wasn't anything we could control. We had a tremendous dropout rate. Our retention was terrible six years ago. It's been much better the last four years. Two years from now, we're going to go back up and we'll look pretty good, but a seven percent drop in graduation rates is just not going to help maintain the high levels. So we did drop out of the top ten. The other areas all look pretty good, and when we get the graduation rate back up, we'll climb back in there.
And then the final item, a piece of good news, I wanted to announce that a SUNY alum, Neil Postman, and many of you know Neil; he has been selected to be the SUNY-wide alum of the year. The SUNY Council of Alumni Associations gives one and only one award per year. This will be the first time in the history of Fredonia that one of our alums has won that prestigious award. It will be given to him in Albany on September 23rd. I get to be there, because I get to introduce him to the group. We're very proud of one of our own. And with that, I'll take any questions you might have.
Jan McVicker: I wonder if you could briefly address what happened during in-person registration?
Hefner: The question is what happened during in-person registration. This is, I assume, the last day of registration?
McVicker: Till Monday.
Hefner: Till Monday, yeah, Monday. Basically, we didn't have more students. I know that was one of the rumors going around, that we had more students, but the head count is exactly what we thought it was going to be. For some reason, and I still haven't gotten a report yet, but I am going to get one, we didn't have as many seats available to give out to students as we should have had for the size of group that we had in there. I don't know what the final explanation is. Maybe we didn't have enough seats to begin with and they got shrunk. We are using a new system now and it could have been that there were just some miscalculations in the system. They got really backed up. There were people waiting for hours to get to registration on Monday before classes. And that was difficulty.
McVicker: Will that report be made public?
Hefner: Sure. Sure. There is no problem with that at all. We'll make it public.
Joe Chilberg: With the dial-up service going down, and, of course, the faculty will migrate to providers. I'm curious for some of the students I am working with about what the situation is for the off-campus students using the dial-up.
Hefner: All off-campus will be shut down.
Chilberg: As well.
Hefner: Yeah. So, they either come on campus or they go with an ISP provider.
5. a. Vice President Mae Reck (Vice President's Report):
I have three items. First of all, again, I would like to echo what Nancy said in terms of congratulating and thanking all the people that contributed to the general education process we went through last year and that we are continuing this semester, so I thank you in advance for this year also.
The first item You should have a copy of the Academic Master Plan. This was presented to you at the May meeting, the last meeting of the College Senate for a first reading. So this is the second and last reading of the plan.
And since you've seen it, the major change on the first page is we had a Masters in Accounting and that has been changed to an MBA with two concentrations, as you can see, in accountancy and business administration. Both Deans, Paul Schwartz and Stephen Stahl, are here to answer questions. And once we receive the input from this body, then I will be making a final recommendation to the President. Are there any questions or comments?
Jon Kraus: You don't have on this plan yet presented the resources required. There are no resource projections for the MBA?
Stephen Stahl: The questions is, what resource implications would there be for going to the graduate program? Somewhere between two and four faculty lines. It should be noted that with the graduate program in accounting, the state has finally gone onboard with requiring a graduate program for public accounting and so we are, to a certain extent, locked into doing that. Many other states have gone that way and New York State only recently signed on to that. The target date for that would be by 2004, which is why we have the 2003 date down for implementing that program.
The program itself is working its way through the departmental curricular processes. What they are envisioning is a flexible program that has a core and then tracks as presented.
Roger Byrne: Is there an accrediting agency for MBA programs?
Stahl: There are two accrediting programs out there. There is AACSB and another one whose initials I forget at this time. We are looking seriously at AACSB accreditation on this.
Tom Rywick: We were involved in a program review last year, and basically, what we did was jump into a self-study for what they call pre-candidacy.
Reck: And we just received the report from the consultant.
5. b. Reck: The second item You have a handout; it's here in terms of the new and replacement faculty lines for 2001 - 2002. On Friday, the Deans and I met with the Budget and Planning Committee to answer questions about these positions that will be going out. After, again, input from this body, I will be making a final recommendation shortly to the President. So are there questions about the replacement and new lines handout for 2001-2002 faculty lines?
5. c. Seeing none, the last item, the third item, deals with the Search Committee for Associate VP for Information Technology. And this is for information. This committee has been appointed. I will be meeting for the first time with the committee shortly. An advertisement has been developed and will be going out shortly also in September and early October. Are there questions about the membership on the committee? Hearing none, thank you.
6. Melinda Karnes (Faculty Senator's Report):
I have no report this month. The first official meeting of the SUNY Senate will be October 19th through the 21st, and I will be attending.
7. a. Len Faulk (GCP Committee Report):
Ted Steinberg has been helping the committee implement the guidelines. Just a short review. The last May session we approved the handout here: the ten categories of the new GCP. What that left to be done, is to define the categories for the two upper-level courses--the six credits. We've been working on that in terms of the GCP Committee; there are some preliminary ideas. The committee will be meeting on that and submitting probably within the next week or so to campus some ideas on those two courses. Our plan is that that would be submitted for the October 2nd College Senate meeting for review. That has to be approved as part of the plan and guidelines need to be developed for that.
So what we're working on today in terms of the guidelines is part of a several-part process. The guidelines that we're working on today were developed by the GCP Committee, but with outreach to the departments. This process started in mid-August when I called Ted in France and asked him if he would help us with the guidelines. He was in a café at the time and he generously said he would. And we had to get him back, and, indeed, we have been meeting several times as a committee and since that time we realized, too, that we needed to go back to the departments, so we asked chairs for some names of folks who would work to help us with the guidelines. We had actually nine separate committees with faculty that, and this was we're talking now the third week of August. We did come back and report and Ted has provided you with the guidelines that we have, so it's been a just-in-time process.
So our task now is obviously to review these guidelines, to take feedback. We've already received some feedback. I think the purpose of today's meeting is to again start that process. I might suggest, and this is kind of a suggestion, that this process obviously, we need to get in place (the guidelines for these ten categories), so there can be submissions of courses. We need to actually have courses submitted and approved so we can actually develop a Fall 2001 course-offerings in January. So we really have to have all the courses basically presented and approved in the process this semester. We would very much like to get the guidelines in place this month, and, in fact, in the next couple weeks. My suggestion would be maybe we're comfortable enough with the guidelines today so we'll go on and take the input into that that is received here, send out the guidelines, and present the proposals. We could do it that way.
Another option could be we could wait another week, if the College Senate so deems have a special meeting to give another week of input, that proposals could come back, say, by Wednesday with any corrections. The committee could review that and draw it up, and send it out at the end of next week for final approval. So just some options. I think the committee is willing to look at all of the suggestions and I think we're quite close in terms of having guidelines that will meet those, and we'll get into specific issues.
So with that, let me invite Ted to come up and we can talk about some of the specific guidelines and respond to your questions.
And, you know, obviously there are certain concerns. The preamble that we've developed was to highlight the areas that were important to us in the development of the General College Program, the three C's, the College Core Curriculum. And those are that we want to end up with a new program that is more coherent. We want to come up with a new program that has fewer courses, but more collaboration between the folks that are teaching the courses.
A good general college program is one in which we have clear goals and we also have those persons teaching in different categories communicating amongst themselves. If we have too many distinct courses that are just courses and not the collaboration and communication, it is very difficult to have an outcome that we can actually assess and improve. And the point here is that if we can develop the methods and courses where we can collaborate and improve on groups of natural sciences, and groups of social sciences, we'll have a better general education program.
In terms of things, I'll just start off with the issues. It's important about how we assess the measures of what a general college program is. Obviously, it can't be all multiple choice or whatever. The guideline, I guess I would respond, "Yeah, it's not important that we set up a minimum/maximum. " We did, I guess to raise a point, and felt, "Let's start the discussion. " I think what's important is is that courses are brought to us with a knowledge of how they're going to assess. If they feel it's a multiple choice and a combination meets that standard, fine. That's what we're reviewing. It won't count whether it's a third or a half or whatever. But it's important that we do the assessment and that our measures are good ones, and that there is a process of critical thinking and so forth.
Yes, we would like to see smaller classes. That's our hope. We'll work towards that as well. And I think the college itself needs to work towards that. We've had a lot of pressure on lower division courses that have gotten bigger. That's where most of the general ed is. So it is very important for us to look at that. We need to as a whole community work on that issue. And obviously, that's an ongoing thing, nothing we're going to resolve today as such. With that introduction, let me have Ted hit the floor and any comments that we want to open up discussion.
Gee: Can I just clarify one point real quick? Are you talking about dropping items five and six completely off?
Faulk: In terms of that language...
Ted Steinberg: I would suggest an alternate wording for number five. Something like this:
It must be recognized that by participating faculty that the guidelines require an emphasis in assessment for student performance in critical thinking and in critical literacy.
That's prescribed by the Trustees. We don't have any choice in that, we might as well do it and do it right. And here's the change, "consequently, instructors must indicate ways in which papers and examinations will address those issues. " That is simply to then assure that exams, whatever kind they might be, will address issues of critical thinking and critical literacy.
Gee: What about item six?
Steinberg: Item six is a desideratum. It would be nice to have small classrooms. I can't imagine anyone objects to having smaller classes, except those who... I won't say it.
Jan McVicker: Ted, is it true that you still haven't gotten any kind of assessment guidelines from the Provost's Office? Nothing has come down?
Steinberg: No guidelines.
Len Faulk: No specific guidelines. There was a general kind of overall report saying that certain things were expected and that there is no system-wide test or whatever.
McVicker: Have they committed to that?
Faulk: It seems that there is still some commitment, but nothing has happened to make that firm. I think in terms of our submissions to the SUNY system, each campus is in charge of its own self-assessment, and that will be developed into the guidelines.
Roger Byrne: Do we have to submit our final gen ed program, whatever that might be, to the Provost for approval prior to our January cut-off date for the Fall 2001 schedule? Or are we going to assume everything will be OK.
Faulk: We do have to submit it because it is different than our interim report. The timing of some things, we're not exactly sure, but we do need to submit what we have, what we have passed, at some point.
Dennis Hefner: I might add that if we run into a time-crunch, we would put it in the catalog as approved on this campus and then, if by chance, it ran into any difficulty from the system, we would amend it for some time in the future.
Ted Steinberg: May I just comment on that, though, because it is a really important point. I know that on Proftalk people have mentioned objections to various aspects of the program. These, as Len said, were given by the people from the departments involved, but they also were required to include the Trustees' criteria. These may not be criteria that we like. I think in many cases they're not. We talked about that last year. But, if you want SUNY-Central to approve this, we're going to have to address those criteria. And so that explains, I think, some of the things that people were objecting to here.
I want to point out that in each of the subject areas in the social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences, it says that we have to have evidence that the course presents general ideas and principles basic to the field of study. I don't know how much more general we can make it than that. That gives instructors the opportunity to do what they want to and what they think is appropriate, but emphasizing the many Trustees criteria. We cannot take those out, we won't have a program.
Michael Grady: It seems to me that in some cases there are a lot more items than the Trustees had, for instance, in the mathematics section. I see a lot more than what the trustees had. Also, I wonder, has any thought been given to the idea of allowing some of these categories to be met by more than one course, because I don't know of any math course that does as many things as is in this? And I don't know any science course that does all the things that are in the science one. I could see two or three courses that put together, or two courses put together that would work, but there is no single course we offer on campus that does all this.
Steinberg: As far as the math is concerned, all I can tell you is that this was put together by people from the Math Department. They must think that their courses can do it. The science criteria/guidelines were put together by people from the science departments. They must think that it is possible.
Grady: I would like to have some names because our department was not consulted in the least.
Steinberg: If you would like to suggest specific changes we will take them into consideration.
Len Faulk: A lot of the language is what SUNY says needs to be covered. I guess we have to say that we have covered that in some way in these courses. And so I guess beyond that, I don't know that there is a whole lot of other changes that are comparable to what's in the Trustees' sections.
Grady: What about the idea of having two courses count? Our majors don't meet any of these requirements because not a single course for the major does all this in one course. They do it in over several.
Steinberg: Well that is probably behind the thinking of another desideratum. That is it's hoped that courses proposed for the program will be new courses that would pass these criteria that the Trustees are requiring.
Grady: But you don't understand. This is going to hurt the major because we don't want to change those courses.
Steinberg: Call Candace. What can I tell you?
Grady: I don't see why it's so hard to have two courses that together meet the requirement.
Steinberg: Oh, I suppose that might be a possibility except that what the College Senate passed last year says six hours in natural sciences. So I guess if they documented courses that would be a possibility.
Grady: Our majors that are going to take thirty-hours. I am just afraid that the majors aren't going to meet their own requirements.
Len Faulk: Logistically it would be difficult. It would be very confusing for everybody to have several courses count for one. I don't know if you could really keep control of that.
Joe Chilberg: A question here. Regarding the areas of social science, humanities, et cetera, do these guidelines reflect the Trustee's requirements at least in spirit?
Steinberg: Often in the exact language. Not always, but often.
Chilberg: For example, in the social sciences, I guess. I teach a course in research methods, which is not an introductory course, that covers all that, and I think this reflects what I've heard earlier. It doesn't really seem appropriate for an introductory course to be covering what might be considered a mid- to advanced-level of knowledge that a major would have. I think it's laudable in a way, but a freshman/ sophomore taking on the social science list is a daunting task. We try to give it to sophomores and it's like pulling teeth already. And so I guess I'm just wondering in here in an introductory course which I typically think is introducing people to the areas of knowledge and major findings, we have gone into now the heart and soul of the scholarly endeavor, at least in the social science list here that I am seeing.
Steinberg: May I read the Trustees criteria?
Chilberg: Yes. Please.
Steinberg: Schools will demonstrate an understanding of the methods social scientists use to explore social phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, measurement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence and mathematical interpretive analysis, the knowledge of major concepts, models, and issues with at least one discipline in the social sciences.
Chilberg: I understand now why we're talking about redoing these courses, because I don't believe they do all of this in all social science courses. And certainly in a communication course that I teach in an introductory level, I'd have to probably dump half of the course to do this sort of stuff at the expense of the breadth of what I would call critical literacy.
Steinberg: I do understand this problem. It's just... .
Chilberg: I know, and I'm not laying this on your lap. I am just saying, "God, here we are," doing what might not be smart stuff.
Ted Schwalbe: Along the same lines, could you refresh me as to what the Trustees said on the basic communication requirement? Is it at the Provost's level or at our level where it seems like basic communications has been defined as written communication?
Len Faulk: Our interpretation was oral across the curriculum. All of the categories have some kind of oral components.
Schwalbe: That's part of the critical literacy, but as far as the basic communication component of the General College Program, we are only considering written communication to be...
Steinberg: That was the decision of the Senate last year, yes, and the oral is included in any part as well as in the major.
Schwalbe: And how is that assessed within the General College Program, or isn't it? That each of the courses in these other blocks have to have an oral communication component in order to be...
Steinberg: They have to address critical literacy. Critical literacy based on one of the forms. It may be oral.
Schwalbe: As I look back into the notes then of last spring to see that basic communication is defined by this group as written communication.
Jan McVicker: Would it be helpful to quote the document that we passed in the spring? It says, "The development of critical literacy (written, oral, quantitative, visual, and electronic media) and of critical thinking will also be integrated throughout the general education courses as appropriate to meet the basic communication and generic competencies of the items." And it also says that we address that also in the majors.
Schwalbe: It seems that what is written here then about written communication is a lot stronger that what Jan has read.
Steinberg: Well, the Senate last year decided that basic communication would be written.
Kraus: Yes, listening to what you read as the Trustees guidelines and looking back over the page you have in social sciences, it does sound like you have specified at length what was given briefly there. It would not be unfair for somebody to read number one, which talks about construction of the body, describing the aims and requirements of the course to include that the course presents general ideas and principles basic to the field of study. " Then you all go on to say, "emphasizing," and the five things you emphasize are all methodological matters and research techniques, which is what is emphasized in a research methods course. And while all of those things will presumable be covered in social science courses, they aren't necessarily the things that are emphasized. Are you suggesting that all courses will really, that all introductory social sciences courses should predominantly emphasize research methods?
Steinberg: I wonder if it would be more amenable if it said instead of "emphasizing", "including".
Kraus: That makes a big difference!
Steinberg: OK, it does, it does, but we have to mention these things. We have to say these things; these are the Trustees' criteria, but it doesn't have to be emphasizing. I don't think there would be any problem with switching that to "including".
Kraus: I would say most social science courses do include these things, and perhaps they should include more of them, but if they are the primary emphasis, it does turn into a research methods course.
Steinberg: Yeah, I understand. Would people be more comfortable with that change?
Kraus: I think so.
Roger Byrne: Would this change be in the natural science category?
Steinberg: Sure, sure.
Amin Sarkar: The subcommittees for each of these areas, do we have already a subcommittee formed or are they in the process of being formed? Say, for example, a subcommittee on social science, a subcommittee on...
Steinberg: Oh, I have to change the question. OK, it won't work in terms of subcommittees. You mean for approving courses or drawing up the guidelines?
Sarkar: You say that the team will be composed of Dr. Steinberg and the faculty subcommittees representing the main GCP categories. So what is the composition of these subcommittees and who are the members?
Steinberg: Those subcommittees, I asked for two from the appropriate departments to work on the guidelines using the Trustees' criteria, the GCP Committee's report and looking at the old GCP guidelines. Yes, they've already been formed; they've already done their work.
Sarkar: My second question is, we had already a GCP that was developed over many, many years. It's too large, too big and it still had many courses scattered here and there. So, is the subcommittee going to look at the existing GCP and pick out the courses from there or at least screening some of those and find out and make a kind of recommendation that it looks like these are the courses that fit to these guidelines from the existing GCP?
Because some of these courses that would fit in the new GCP, also they were in the existing GCP. They are the standardized courses. For example, Economic Principles, that is standardized throughout the world. It is the same course, normally the same textbook, whether it is taught as a part of the GCP or as a part of the core program in the department, it is very much standardized. So whether we can retain some of that kind of course instead of formulating a totally new course that will be one-hundred percent consistent with these guidelines.
Steinberg: Well, courses that are proposed to the new program, courses that will be in the new program, have to be one-hundred percent consistent with these guidelines. Now, that may be a course that already exists, or it may be a course that already exists with some changes.
Sarkar: Yeah, that's what I'm asking. Is the subcommittee looking into that?
Steinberg: No. The faculty will have to propose the courses.
Faulk: Yeah. Four-hundred and fifty courses or whatever there are, to have the committee review each one of those to fit into some of these categories--it's best to go the other way around and departmentally or within natural sciences or whatever there should be some collaboration and thinking. What of these courses are the best courses? What are the courses that we want more sections, where we can work together, so I think that it has to come from the grassroots up.
Mac Nelson: My question is about Roman five, the Humanities, and it's section 1a "the historical component of the knowledge, methods, and conventions in the discipline." I can imagine any number of terrific good general ed humanities courses that have no historical developmental orientation at all. May I assume that this is another bowing in the direction of the Trustees requirement, because if not I would like to suggest a change?
Steinberg: I don't want to answer that without looking.
Nelson: Sure. I myself almost always employ some sort of historical orientation, but I certainly would not want to require it of a gen ed humanities course.
Steinberg: Well, you know it's required now. It's part of the General College Program. It is not among the Trustees' criteria. No, it's not, but it is currently one of the GCP requirements.
Nelson: Well we might want to consider removing it then, because it seems to me, it's a restriction and a limitation on what might otherwise be a very creative approach. That's not a motion by the way.
Paul Schwartz: You can just do what you did before and change "emphasizing", to "including".
Steinberg: Yeah, that will be changed.
Tom Rywick: Since we solved two problems that were bothering me so easily, let me try another one in the Mathematics/Quantitative reasoning (number II). A couple of people in Proftalk raised issues. I think Dick Reddy did; I think it was Dick Reddy. I have so many pages of Proftalk stuff, I'm not sure who's is who any more. Was statistics originally conceived to be part of the mathematics?
Len Faulk: Yes.
Rywick: I thought it was and I think people had been agreeing that it was.
Faulk: If students came at a certain preparation level...
Rywick: If that is the case, then it seems very difficult that the statistics courses at least as now taught would really include all of the evidence talked about under part II, number 1. Especially as I think Dick Reddy brought up, part 'a'. Are these specific evidences really necessary, or can this be reworded some way to have more "ors" rather than "ands"?
Steinberg: Let me look before... .
Len Faulk: There's actually an argument... .
Mae Reck: Being a PACGE member, that the way we were looking at these guidelines, particularly in mathematics, is that if a person qualifies in terms of getting into the statistics course, if that person has to come with a set of knowledge and skills. That is a presumption that the person qualifies, or there might be a prerequisite for that course that covers some of the items that are there. Some mathematics courses have prerequisites.
Faulk: They have to have third-year Regents standing.
Reck: Right. That's a measure there, too.
Rywick: Is it a more accurate statement to say that, "evidence that students have mastered the following skills at least by the end of the course?" "Will master" just seems to me that we're talking about "in this course. "
Steinberg: How about "will have mastered"?
Rywick: OK.
Chilberg: I just want to make an observation that in the humanities and natural sciences there was some sense that we've covered the historical development and evolution of the technologies in the discipline. In the social science, I didn't see it, and if there is any place where there is historical and evolutionary development, social science has it also. If that's a college-type of interest in our curriculum it might be added there, although...
Steinberg: I take it that's not a motion.
Chilberg: Well, I think that there are some intriguing developments that borrowing the natural science methods into social science is a debate between naturalistic and quantitative method.
Steinberg: Yeah, I think the committee that worked on that section wanted to make sure that they mentioned the Trustees' criteria. If there is a second to add "historical," I'm sure that that can be done.
Jan McVicker: Do you have any idea, Ted, when the foreign language guidelines will be ready?
Steinberg: I should explain. There was a disagreement about whether there should be foreign language guidelines and so it just didn't get done, but it will be done. There's no problem with doing it, it was just a question of whether we needed to have them or didn't need to have them.
McVicker: I'll tell you what prompts my question is that in the list of faculty lines that we talked about under the Vice President's report there was nothing listed for Foreign Languages and, as we know, the foreign language requirement is going to heavily impact that department, so I'm just a little curious about the absence of discussion on that.
Steinberg: It's not related to anything that intellectual. It's something we should discuss.
I have the first meeting of my graduate class in four minutes in Thompson, so...
Palumbos: Are the guidelines set then? If there isn't discussion can...
Steinberg: No, no. No, no. That's what we're looking to do. Is there any other discussion?
Mike Grady: I'd like to propose that chairs and other interested persons make suggestions to the committee for re-writing some of these, because, you know, this is the first most of us have seen them. And one or two people from some department have no idea of what's going on in another department. We all need to make this ours. We're supposed to take ownership of it, and we need a chance to do that. And so I would suggest just sending it back to committee to gather more data now that people have it in their hands. And also, I think we all need a copy of whatever you're reading from. Is that the same as it was last year? The Provost's Guidelines?
Steinberg: It's the same as it was when we saw it last year.
Grady: Because the math only says two things, it doesn't say the twelve things that are in this list.
Steinberg: No. That was done by people in the Math Department.
Grady: All right, but not everything in these criteria are from the Trustees, so people need to...
Joe Chilberg: I would find it very helpful if we, in the various disciplinary areas, received these criteria sheets via the chairpersons of the department perhaps. To include these guidelines, of course, and maybe bulleted below the Trustee guidelines that were used to spur this on, so we'll make that connection and then see which is Fredonia stuff and what is, maybe, propelled by the Board of Trustees. Something like that would help us kind of put it all on one page. It looks like it could have happened that way; it's a little work for you.
Minda Rae Amiran: If departments are going to be instructing the committee, there needs to be a firm deadline.
Steinberg: Oh, yes.
Nancy Gee: Len had mentioned Wednesday.
Steinberg: That would be contingent on when we can get this material out.
Gee: Right.
Steinberg: I can probably get it out tomorrow.
Gee: How long do people need? What's a reasonable deadline for department chairs to consult their faculty, get the feedback together, and get it back to them?
Michael Grady: At least a week.
Gee: Joe is saying two?
Joe Chilberg: A minimum two weeks. They need to...
Ted Steinberg: Can I just say, I mean, I really am sympathetic to what you're saying. I think you're going to find that with the changes we've made today, you're not going to be able to change the guidelines that much. You're not going to be able to change them enough to make any kind of difference, and you will never come up with guidelines that will make everyone happy.
Penny Chiappe: Last spring, we were told that with impacted programs for the GCP, we will still be able to ensure that students will be able to finish the impacted programs and these key requirements within the "Fredonia-in-four." Would it be possible to let the impacted programs have some sort of sense of how the GCP is going to be implemented to affect things like Education, so that our students can possibly finish in time so that way we'll know what to look for, and what types of comments that we can generate?
Len Faulk: The only way we can do that is to get courses proposed and figure out what's going to fit. We definitely do need to do that this semester and we need to know whether we're going to have to ask PACGE for some exemptions and what courses are we going to ask exemptions for.
Chiappe: So would it be helpful for Education to provide you with what specific courses we require of our students and how they might fit the proposed goals and objectives?
Ted Steinberg: I don't think at this stage. Ultimately, yes, but at this stage no, and, in fact, if we delay accepting the guidelines, it will delay that process.
Faulk: The sooner we can get these guidelines out, the faster we can get to those issues.
Chuck Telly: So if we go with that motion, one week is the longest you could stand. Is that it? Or no motion at all?
Faulk: One week goes by very quickly. I was thinking that Monday to Monday is one week. Two weeks is extending, but it's three weeks until the next College Senate meeting. We want to get this done in the next certainly couple weeks. Could we do it in a week?
Jon Kraus: The reality is that people are going to If you want people to meet together, to talk together and to look over this, if we don't have at least 'till a week to Friday, I think it's unrealistic.
Gee: Is there any way we can go through the consideration process now but hold the vote on the second, in the Senate meeting in three weeks?
Steinberg: I'm just not sure what you mean.
Gee: Can we do the final consideration in the Senate meeting in three weeks?
Steinberg: Oh.
Gee: Start the process, begin working through it, have the final vote in the Senate meeting in three weeks.
Joe Chilberg: Point of information. Does that mean that this process means we've got to be working together in meetings every Monday night or something like that?
Gee: No. I'm just suggesting that information get out to department chairs, begin the consideration, start the feedback, let's get it going rapidly, but have the final consideration of the submission guidelines held in the Senate meeting in three weeks.
Chuck Telly: So effectively, you're saying each department, where it affects them, they're going to work on this and bring it back?
Gee: I would like to see the final document in here.
Len Faulk: Give it to us at least a week before. Let's say a week from Friday, that this internal process, the facts given to us at that point, so we can turn it back to you. That would be fine. Beyond that I think we all have to be talking to faculty. Substantially this is going to occur. Really start within your courses now. That process is going to have a real quick turnaround.
Jon Kraus: Looking at some of this more closely, it seems to me that probably some of our concerns will be reduced if we can specify some questions to you and get your responses, so why don't we also do it that way. We can do it over Proftalk so it's public, so there are other people seeing responses. As we look more closely at this, it may look a little bit less onerous than it might be, but it depends on what you have down there in telling us what we have to emphasize.
Ted Steinberg: Well, we've changed that.
Kraus: I know that. I know that. I know that.
Ted Schwalbe: I noticed on your GCP Committee members there are no members from Arts and Humanities at this point. Is that going to wait until the Governance Committee fills all slots or...?
Faulk: We really need to have these elections quickly. Some of these will be replaced in October. We need that committee to be part of, certainly, the review.
Dick Reddy: Len, just a clarification. The people who are in those areas now are continuing to serve if if they're still around, right?
Faulk: Bob Rogers, whose term is up, has been continuing to serve. Jan, I guess it's impossible... Can you serve for any period, until the elections?
McVicker: If I can help, I will help.
Faulk: OK, so will try to continue on with those members, yes.
Mac Nelson: Point of order. Is there a motion on the floor?
Gee: No.
Steinberg: I wish someone would make a motion because I'm late for class.
Michael Grady: I'll make a motion to send this back to committee for consultation with chairs to be looked at again in three weeks.
Chuck Telly: No. To be sent to Ted by Friday next and then we would vote on it.
Grady: Right. All feedback to go to Ted by next Friday.
Telly: Then we vote on it three weeks from today.
Gee: Let's try this again. Does everybody understand the motion?
Chilberg: Absolutely.
The motion was seconded.
Gee: OK, now we can discuss the motion. Any discussion of the motion?
Markus Vink: Hold it for one point. I think that the consultation, as has been suggested, should be open. So, Proftalk would be a good avenue. I think that should be part of the motion as well.
Gee: Another thing that we can do is send out periodic updates to our wider distribution list. Not everybody is on Proftalk. So, once we have some workable document--well, we have a workable document--but once it's been modified, we can then send it out to the distribution list. It goes to all faculty, staff, everyone on campus. So we can do that periodically.
Joe Chilberg: If I'm clear then, we'll be sending these guidelines to the chairs of the departments. Is that the idea for this consultation process? Is that the plan? Without making this a motion or adding an amendment, could we have the respective BOT guidelines with the affiliated areas, so that that could be looked at?
Faulk: Yes.
Chilberg: Thank you.
The motion was passed by a majority vote.
Jon Kraus: Len, could you all once again make sure that you distribute these guidelines to us and the changes as soon as possible. I know we're taking time up, but as soon as possible before the 2nd so we have a chance to look at them before were asked to approve them?
Faulk: That's my goal, believe me. I'll get that out as soon as possible.
7. b. Faulk: The Graduate Council has approved and needs your consideration and approval of a new Masters of Education in English as a Second Language. Dr. Parla is here. Dr. Parla has, indeed, developed the program, a program that is of great need nationally and in New York City, for teachers in English as a second language and now we've also got grants to help fund the development of the program. At this point, there has been tremendous interest. There are courses that have been taught in prelude to actually developing this and there are probably forty to fifty students who are currently showing interest in this program. It is a major program, and we need really is your approval of the guidelines. I guess at this point, I can open up to any questions. You may have the materials here on the program.
Ted Schwalbe: I'm not familiar with the term, TESOL. I am familiar with TOFEL. I'm wondering how this differs.
Joann Parla: TESOL is Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Schwalbe: I can read that. I'm wondering exactly what does that mean. How is that different from...
Parla: TOFEL has to do with foreign language, where English is not spoken in the society, whereas TESOL is for within the United States.
I just wanted to add to what Len said in terms of the fact that we have been working with New York State every step of the way developing the program. We have letters of support from the University of Buffalo TESOL program, which is the closest ESL program in a fifty-mile radius. We have letters of support from New York State Ed. Bilingual Education Technical Assistance Centers, both Erie I and Buffalo. Support from Jamestown Schools, Dunkirk Schools and Buffalo Schools. So I think that, you know, we've tried to do our homework and anybody who would like to see the ninety-page packet that Dr. Hefner will get to sign is welcome to do so. All of the details are in that package. The package does follow the new certification guidelines.
Nancy Gee: Just to clarify, there is a motion on the floor that we're discussing.
Michael Grady: I was just wondering about the admissions requirement: an undergraduate GPA of 2. 75 or higher. That may seem like a good idea, but once you get that degree, there is absolutely nothing you could ever do to change your undergraduate GPA. So had you thought about what about somebody who went to school fifteen years ago...
Parla: Yeah, in the general guideline is 2. 75. I will tell you right now, all of our students, the 40 or 50 that we have, have that GPA or higher. We have people who have already obtained master's programs who are wanting to come back for a second.
Grady: That was my other question. What if they got a 3. 5 in their master's program, but their undergraduate GPA was...
Parla: Yeah, we have a lot of that little detail, but that's the general guideline. We do have people who may have graduated over ten years, there are certain things we ask them to do: written samples, recommendations, sort of a letter of petition letting us know why, et cetera. We have an interview as a part of this process. We are very thrilled with the caliber of student that we have so far in the department and we want to maintain that high level.
Jon Kraus: Page four. It says all students must complete the equivalent of twelve credit hours in a language other than English.
Parla: Right.
Kraus: That seems exceptionally modest.
Parla: Well, that's the state minimum requirement. In English as a second language, this isn't bilingual education, students only need to have gone through the process themselves of learning a second language. All instruction is done through English, so they do not need to be fluent in a language other than English.
Kraus: Even if they had 27 hours they wouldn't be fluent.
Parla: No.
Kraus: That is what New York State has as their minimum. Why did we adopt their minimum?
Parla: Well, realistically, I think that most of our students have more than that, but we didn't see a need to go beyond the minimum, especially given our resources right now in the Foreign Language Department.
I should add, though, that Christine Henseler has developed two courses in Spanish for Education: one called "Building Bridges" and another "Spanish for Educators." Also, I've met with Ruth Antosh, and she is going to develop a couple of selections in French that will also be appropriate. Most of our students look forward to those types of courses.
Right now, to ask the Foreign Language Department to, let's say, help us meet an 18 hour requirement, any other beyond the state minimum, would be sort of arbitrary, and I didn't want to get into that. You're right, it's not going to make them fluent if they take thirty hours, so that's the minimum. They're certainly able to take more if they'd like to. They have related electives in the program; two related electives so they can take some more on their own.
The program was approved unanimously.
7. c. Charlie Davis (Governance Committee Report):
I have three items. The first is that shortly there will be coming out within the next two weeks our preference list for various committees, so be looking for that.
Number two is we began this last spring, it's the committee review process: looking at the viability of all committees. That was brought up last year as an issue. We're about half-way through that. It will probably be available by October, and then it will be submitted for review and discussion and then final recommendations as to which committees to keep or to modify.
And lastly, this summer I worked on, with Mike Gerholdt, a web-based voting program. We have that completed and we hope to hold our first elections on the 25th, Monday the 25th. So all committees that we called for nominations for last spring, including GCP, you would vote, and we're going to give you a whole week although we don't think we need five days, but we're giving you the whole week so if you find any bugs or such Don't get upset if you find out that when you go to the website and you go to your division and you need a password. If you don't exist, don't panic. You still need to come to work, so just send me an email mail message. Within the next week I'll get out the directions in terms of how we're going to be doing the web-based voting.
7. d. Shamus Hayes (Student Affairs):
For those of you who don't know me, my name is Shamus Hayes. I'm the chairperson on the Student Affairs Committee. The very last page in your packet and agenda refers to the proposed policy statement on consensual relationships. The Student Affairs Committee was tasked with or asked to draft a corresponding document to be placed in the Student Handbook, which looks like this, for those of you who haven't seen it or do not recognize this. On page 113 and basically exactly what is in the last page of your packet there is what is in the Student Handbook. We did want to bring that to you to show that to you and make you aware. It's very simple and it goes along with the Faculty Handbook. I think that we are under the assumption that the faculty should be the decider in understanding what the policy is, but the students should also be aware of that policy. I can take any questions and Mr. Dimitri is also here if you have any questions.
Gee: Just to clarify, a motion is on the floor. So this is the motion from the committee, and it needs to go to a vote. This committee was charged with developing this motion and then supposedly it's going to be included in the catalog. That was the charge that the Senate gave to their committee.
Jon Kraus: Question. If it's already in the Handbook, what is the motion we are addressing ourselves to?
Gee: That was an accident. That should not have gone into the Hndbook without going to this body first.
Hayes: That was a miscommunication on the committee's part. We, instead of sending it back to the committee, it went directly to Dr. Hefner and so we so do apologize for the confusion there. There was a miscommunication on where we were supposed to send it back to. That's why we are showing it to you today, so that you are aware of it.
Gee: It obviously can be modified if you call for that.
Paul Schwartz: I'd like to someone to address the usage problem in the second to last paragraph, last sentence. "This person" is later referred to in the plural, the possessive adjective "their. " You should change "their" to "his/her", or something.
Hayes: You're suggesting the very last sentence of the second to last paragraph instead of "their", "his/her"?
Schwartz: Yes.
Gee: So that can be an editorial change, we don't need an amendment for something like that. Is there anything else? Are you happy with the substance of the material?
Jan McVicker: I just have a question. I'm still really unclear on whether Resident Assistants count as staff or as students and does this then apply to them.
Gee: That's a good question.
Hayes: I don't recall that we discussed this, but I think that it would create a conflict in the event that you are a resident assistant and one of your residents... You know, because you are in a position of power with them. I think if you kinda want to take my position as Student Association President, I don't have a tremendous amount of power over all the students, so I'm allowed to see another student per see. [laughter] But I think a Resident Assistant in a co-ed residence hall that is in a position of power that could have possible effects.
McVicker: Would the committee be open to a suggestion for that kind of statement?
Gee: It was included in the faculty version of the document.
Dick Reddy: It was deleted. Only "Residence Directors. "
E. Nelson: I had spoken for Resident Assistants and Resident Directors was put in. Resident Assistants get stipends which means they are paid by the college, right?
Mike Dimitri: I think for purpose of clarification, the Resident Directors are full-time staff members and the staff/faculty policy pertains to them. There is no question that a student living in a residence hall with a relationship with a director responsible for that building, there would have to be some kind of change. There is no question about that. The RA- student relationships, to be honest with you those things occur on a fairly regular basis. To legislate that or mandate that would be difficult.
McVicker: Can't we say that we don't encourage such intimate... isn't that part of...
Dimitri: Between student and student, or...
McVicker: Between RA's for example and...
Shamus Hayes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the understanding that there is stipulation in the Resident Assistants Handbook that a relationship with a resident is not encouraged.
Dimitri: It could result in a room change or a relocation of the RA. That is in the contract within Residence Life. But the bigger issue was the Resident Directors; to me the Resident Directors must adhere to this policy just the same as any other member of the faculty or staff.
Hayes: Does that answer your question?
Hefner: The RA's aren't in a position where they can take disciplinary action on any students. They report issues to the Residence Director, and the Residence Director who truly has the authority in each of the housing environments. It would be equivalent to a student tutor, and saying that tutors can't date other students. I mean, it just would not make any sense. Clearly, this issue is watched and the Resident Directors know that, if there are problems, then they will be addressed, but it's not part of this policy. This is for our employees.
The motion was passed unanimously.
Hayes: I'd like to very briefly take fifteen seconds here and introduce myself and Emily Polumbos, who is sitting right next to me, as Student Association President and Vice President. We do our best to make almost all of the College Senate meetings. There are also Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior representatives that will be here. I just wanted to make everybody aware that those people such as the chairs of, say, the Governance Committee, the Student Affairs Committee and what not, if you would like my phone number at the Student Association office it's 3381. If you could drop me a line as the chairperson of the committee and let me know when your first meeting is, so if I don't have a student to appoint to your committee yet, I can make your meeting, or if I already have a student that's ready to be appointed to your committee, I can appoint that student and they can make sure that they get to your meeting.
There's a lot of committees. I think there are about 14 or 15 different committees on the college that I need to appoint students to, and it's hard for me to know who all the chairpersons are and what not, so I'm just making this announcement to the College Senate for you to just either drop me line or leave me a note so that I can make sure that you get students to represent. And my email is haye7839@fredonia.edu. And just so you're aware, Student Association meetings are every Thursday night at 5:30 p.m. in G24 McEwen Hall. Anyone is more than welcome. If you have an issue or what not, I know already we've got two guest speakers. Dr. Hefner is going to be stopping in and giving us a hello and welcome back , and anyone is welcome to voice their concerns. If you want to get a message out to the students, please give us a holler and let us know you'd like to come. We'd be more than happy to have you. Thank you very much!
Dick Reddy: Just a quick observation. It may be helpful at some point for the Student Association to have an email address of its own. I'm sure that somehow or other that can be developed so that rather than relying on the name of the person who happens to be the President of the Student Association, the office be online so that messages could go in directly to the Student Association.
Hayes: I can look into that. Thank you very much. We just actually got our web page up and running as of last semester, it's www.fredonia.edu/sa. We've just been made aware that there are a few college guidelines and what not that need to be updated on that and we're going to be doing that in the near future here. I'll see if there is a way for us to get a link to email us any questions, comments, or concerns.
9. The meeting was adjourned at 5:27PM
Attendance:
Arts, Education, and Humanities:
[ ] Ruth Antosh
[x] Joan Burke
[x] Joseph Chilberg
[ ] Scott Johnston
[x] Patrick Jones
[x] Jeanette McVicker
[x] Karen Mills-Courts
[x] Elizabeth Nelson
[x] Malcolm Nelson
[x] Ted Schwalbe
[x] Theodore Steinberg
[x] Jackie Swansinger
[x] Markus Vink
Ex. Officio:
[ ] Tracy Bennett
[x] Charles Davis
[x] Michael Dimitri
[x] Len Faulk
[x] Nancy Gee
[x] Dennis Hefner
[x] Arlene Hibschweiler
[x] Melinda Karnes
[x] Jean Malinoski
[x] Mae Reck
[x] Dick Reddy
[x] Paul Schwartz
[x] Stephen Stahl
Natural and Social Sciences and Professional Studies:
[x] Ziya Arnavut
[x] Nancy Boynton
[ ] Adam Brown
[x] Roger Byrne
[x] Penny Chiappe
[x] Mara Goodman
[x] Michael Grady
[x] Jon Kraus
[x] David Ludlam
[x] Lawrence Maheady
[ ] Jane Romal
[x] Amin Sarkar
[x] Cynthia Smith
[x] Charles Telly
Professional Staff/Management Confidential:
[ ] Jean Branicky
[x] Carolyn Briggs
[x] Mike Conley
[x] Vince Courtney
[x] Marianne Eimer
[x] Karen Klose
[ ] Kevin Michki
[x] Charlotte Morse
[x] Carol Schwerk
[x] Martha Smith
[x] Soteris Tzitzis
[x] Anna Zarczynski
Student Association:
[x] Shamus Hayes
[x] Emily Palumbos
Guests:
Minda Rae Amiran
R. Marzec
R. Burton
Earl Hausrath
Joann Parla
Wilda Colon
Tom Rywick
Elizabeth Dwyer
Jennifer Dyck
Minutes prepared by Dick Reddy, College Senate Secretary, with the assistance of Michael Anton Sciortino and Karen Dudziak.