CCSU Faculty Senate
Minutes—November 19, 2001
VAC 105 3:00 PM
Members Present: Abadiano, Altieri, Austad, Baratta, Benfield, Best, Blatz, Calvert,
Capitao, Cassela, Chasse, Cohen, Conway, Crundwell, Cueto,
Fried, Garcia, Gilmore, Halkin, Halloran, Hicks, Jones, Kim, Kjell, Kurkjian,
Lapuerta, Larose, Leake, Lefebvre, Lemaire, Martin, Martin-Troy, O’Connell,
Perrault, Phillips, Ribchinsky, Ritzenhoff, Rodrigues, Sarisley,
Stanley, Stoneback, Thornton, Terezakis, Ulrich, Wolff.
Ex‑Officio Members Present: V.P
and Provost Bartelt, Deans Miller, Lemma, Higgins and Kremens, Dick McCallum,
Associate VP for Administrative Affairs
Guests: Paul Petterson (Chair Curriculum
Committee), Jeanne Sohn (Acad. Reorg. Comm), Lawrence Klein, Susan Pease.
Meeting was called to order by President
Best at 3.05 p.m. in Vance 105.
I. Approval of Minutes of 11/05/01
Secretary Benfield noted an addition
requested: Under
discussion for V. add, the new judicial officer, Tom Clark, did say that
faculty should consult him if they have academic dishonesty cases while Judd's
signature is pending. In addition there were some minor typographical
changes that have been made
Motion to accept.
Martin-Troy/Wolff
Carried Unanimously
II.
Announcements
a.
AAUP Report. Sen. Austad
On Thursday, November 15, CSU-AAUP's Attorney filed
a Respondent Brief with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations. The
challenged issues have been reduced from 10 to 3. The remaining issues are 1)
Article 3.3 - Non-Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Sexual Harassment
Complaint Procedures, 2) Article 9.4.4 - Working Conditions - Electronic Mail
and 3) Article 10.8 - Workload - the ratio of Full-time Faculty to Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) Students (part-time cap issue). By November 21, the BOT's
attorney will determine whether or not a hearing is necessary. If not, the
BOT's reply brief must be filed by November 29
Secondly Sen. Austad noted there was an
AAUP social that afternoon. All are welcome as are donations to the family of Dr.
Olusegun Sogunro of the Department of Education Leadership.
b.
Board
of Trustees Report. Sen. Abadiano.
Attached to end of minutes
c.
Exceptions
to DEC’s. President Best
President Best reminded the Faculty
Senate that a number of Departments had too few tenured Faculty to constitute a
viable DEC and therefore constitution with members outside the Departments must
always be made. In the case of this year timing of Senate meetings meant that
exceptions must be approved prior to November 15. The steering committee
therefore authorized exceptions to the DEC on November 13 to accommodate this
situation.
d.
International programs
for students and faculty. Colleen Larson and Lisa Bigelow
Ms.
Bigelow indicated that the Center for International Education works with the International and Area Studies Committee and
six regional studies
centers to implement the
Study abroad program, 2-5 week course abroad programs, the intensive English
language program, grant initiatives and faculty exchanges. All of these
programmatic areas are available to faculty to further their personal and professional
development and she would welcome faculty to discuss any of the above program
possibilities at any time.
III.
Elections
There was no elections business
IV.
Senate Committee Reports
a.
Curriculum
Committee. Paul Petterson
Indicated the report had been previously
circulated with the following amendments now proposed (See attached):
Motion to accept
with Amendments
Martin-Troy/Crundwell
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
V.
Old Business
There was no Old Business
VI.
New Business
a.
Photo
copying-New System Larry Klein
Dr Klein indicated that recently he went to the copy
center for Xeroxing and under the new system was declined service as he was
“unauthorizedâ€. He wanted to know why and indeed given the volume of material
he Xeroxes (for classes totaling 90 students) why is this monitored…which
brings up the issue of costs. Given an 80% increase in student tuition fees in
the last ten years why are we “cheap skating†the students. In essence we
should be allowed to teach how we wish to teach without administrative hurdles.
Sen. Jones: You should be on a list approved by the
chair…the secretary keeps and administers that list.
Sen. Martin-Troy: the Chair is responsible
Sen. Jones: Is not all your xeroxing non-chargeable?
Dr Klein: But I have no authorization.
Sen. Austad; what do you wish the Faculty senate to
do?
Dr Klein: Not sure…but this is hurting students
President Best: The Steering Committee will
undertake to pursue this issue with the President.
b.
Academic
Reorganization. Jeanne Sohn
Ms. Sohn introduced the members of the committee and
indicated there were four areas to which she had a selection of responses and
comments
|
Initiative |
Response
to date |
Comments |
|
Chairs
leadership Initiative |
Generally
positive |
Some
chairs wanted to know if it meant more meetings? |
|
Restructure
the weekly block to provide a 4 hour Wednesday “no class time†block |
Mixed
reaction but more inclined to change. Some value to uncommitted time |
Rationale
is more collegial academic community. The architect of this suggestion has
demonstrated it can be accommodated |
|
Office
of General Studies with advising, learning center, guidance retention
responsibilities |
Again
various responses, more inclined to think it a good idea than not, reasonably
positive. |
Started
as a suggestion for a new School of General Studies but now the inclination
is toward a more conservative approach. |
|
Restructuring
of schools in academic Affairs. Four alternate plans all with
additional/changed schools. |
Almost
universal condemnation in Arts & Sciences. Not appropriate, resented. Other
schools comment that A & S could be restructured to make it more like
them. General
dissatisfaction with the four options. |
|
Ms. Sohn indicated that the committee would
reconvene on Wednesday November 28 to consider comments from Faculty and
departmental chairs with a view to meeting the deadline set by the President
for a report before Christmas.
Motion: That the senate poll
all faculty to respond to the four initiatives presented by the Committee and
also to include the four plans for restructuring and that the results be sent
to the faculty senate and the Budget and planning Committee
Gilmore/ Terezakis
Discussion on the Motion
Sen.
Phillips: what existing data on other Universities were consulted?
Ms Sohn: Consulted peer institutions, but only
looked at their organization without individual consultation
Sen. Crundwell: What is the feedback so far from
departmental chairs?
Sohn: A number have sent resolutions to the
committee.
Sen. Stoneback: Why not send ballots to departments?
Sen. Fried: The must critical question to her is
what is the Mission of the Institution and where does this therefore fit in?
The Committee needs to explain these proposals in the context of the mission.
Sen. Halloran: He concurred-more specifically what
is the problem that generates a need for re-organization? Where is the problem
statement? Why is the present structure not acceptable?
Sen. Moran: Two concerns (i) The poll should also
include the issues of the General studies proposal and (ii) do we really wish
to base policy on public opinion?
Sen. Phillips: What are the costs associated with
each plan?
Dr Klein: We need a purpose and a sense of history
here
Amendment to the Motion from Sen. Martin-Troy. “By individual
ballotsâ€
Accepted
Sen. Ritzenhoff: Is there more discussion on the advantages and disadvantages elsewhere?
Sohn: The full text is on the web site, which is: >>http://www.ccsu.edu/reorg<<
Sen.
Abadiano: When can this poll be conducted in order to meet this deadline?
Sen. Martin-Troy: It must be done by E Mail
Sen. Fried: Who decides on the final report?
Sen. Martin-Troy: The administration
Sen. Jones: Spoke against the motion as it showed
nothing other than popular opinion and this is not how we as faculty should
influence policy.
Sen. Crundwell: Also spoke against the motion. What
if we only get 15% responding…do 85% agree or disagree? Some Departments have
already voted and responded does this negate their vote?
Sen. Phillips: (i) what are the political
implications? What if a department does not want to move? (ii) Can the ultimate
decision come back to faculty senate for approval? (iii) What are the costs?
Question Called
11 for the motion
22 against
3 abstentions
The Motion was defeated
VII.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn
Martin-Troy/Terazakis
Carried
Six voted against the motion
Next
Meeting is December 3 at 3.00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Richard W. Benfield
Faculty Senate Secretary