Faculty Senate

Minutes - December 7, 2020 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Adair, S.; Atkinson, S.; Austad, C.; Benoit, D.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Chakraborty, S.; Chen, S.; Cox, S.; Dumpson, N.; Duquette, J.; Elfant, A.; Flinn, B.; Foster, P.; French, J.; Gagnon, A.; Gamache, J.; Garceau, T.; Ghiloni-Wage, B.; Gichiru, W.; Gu, S.; Halkin, S.; Harris, D.; He, F.; Hernandez, J.; Holt, J.; Hou, X.; Hughes, H.; Jarmoszko, T.; Jenkins, A.; Jones S.; Kapper, M.; Karas, R.; Kean, K.; Knox, C.; Langevin, K.; Leonidas, E.; Lewis, M.; Mahony, M.A.; Martin, K.; Martin, V.; Matzke, B.; Mendez-Mendez, S.; Moreno-Fuentes, G.; Nicoletti, J.; Oyewumi, O.; Pancsofar, E.; Phillips, E.; Rein, T.; Roark, E.; Rode, D.; Ruhs, T.; Salama, T.; Salgado, E.; Schenck, S.; Scott, T.; Sikorski, J.; Singhal, R.; Skinner, L.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Spear, E.; Strickland, A.; Styrczula, S.; Sylvester, C.; Wang, W.; Whittemore, L.; Williams, L.; Zadi, S.

Ex-Officio: Dauwalder, D.; Farhat, J.; Kim, J.; Kostelis, K.; Robinson, C.; Wolff, R.; Toro, Z.

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Alicandro, J.; Bielawa, M.; Casamento, C.; Cintorino, S.; Claffey, G.; Fallon, M.; Gonzalez, K.; Goode, G.; Jackson, M.; Jasek, M.; Kirby, Y.; Lupachino, K.; Magnan, C.; McGrath, K.; Melnyk, J.; Misra, K.; Palmer, J.; Peckham, K.

1. Minutes

• Minutes of November 30, 2020

The minutes of November 30, 2020 were approved unanimously.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP President (L. Williams)

• • Contract proposals were exchanged last week and shared with the membership. A summary was prepared, and two Chapter meetings were held to discuss them. AAUP will be sending emails with requests for assistance from faculty. Please direct contract questions to AAUP leadership.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME Secretary (J. Gamache)

• No announcements.

c. SGA

• The SGA will be sending out a survey over winter break concerning where SGA reserves should be allocated, with the three options being the diversity sculpture, a partial reimbursement of the student activity fee or an increase in scholarships.
• During the last SGA meeting, there was a changed in leadership. The new vice president is Olanrewaju “Ola” Olamuyiwa.

d. FAC to the Board of Regents (D. Blitz)

• There was a meeting of the Finance Committee. The staff report again included the budget amendment which directed specific cuts to part-time lecturers, University Assistants and Graduate Assistants. There was also some resistance on the part of the four universities when they meet with BOR CFO Ben Barnes. What they said in the staff report, which was approved over Sen. Blitz’s objection, was “both the colleges and the universities have been given flexibility to identify savings outside the originally identified budget lines in order avoid harming students, including graduate assistants.” Sen. Blitz noted that that is a response to the criticism we made of them, and that is a positive sign. Then the report continued, “However, declining enrollment across CSCU should allow for these reductions. Any alternatives shall be identified during the mid-year budget review, along with the other COVID-related spending requirements.” Sen Blitz pointed out that that would be too late for changes that were already being implemented for the Spring semester.
• The staff report then went on to make several claims, including that 64% of full-time university faculty are also paid for part-time teaching and that 24% of part-time courses are being taught by full-time faculty. Sen. Blitz opined that what they are doing is trying to justify what they have done and claim that the courses which full-time faculty teach during winter and summer session, though they do not state this explicitly, are in effect, full-time faculty functioning as part-time lectures and, therefore, what the university can do is cut full-time faculty classes for winter and summer session to meet the requirement that was specified in the budget amendment. They included a table to that effect. Sen. Blitz said this is being mentioned because obviously they are trying to obfuscate and obscure what they have done and, as usual, to blame the full-time faculty. Sen. Blitz noted that he pointed out at the Finance Committee meeting that full-time faculty do not teach part-time courses during the academic year and that they must make explicit that they are talking about winter and summer session. Sen. Blitz said they do not appear to understand the distinction and have a table of completely ridiculous numbers which tend to show that, in fact, most full-time faculty are part-time faculty as well. This will come up at the next BOR meeting and Sen. Blitz will make the usual objection at that point.
• Sen. Blitz also announced there are a couple of positive things that will be coming up at the next BOR meeting, which is good for the university:
  • The Charter Oak building on Manafort Drive will be assigned to CCSU. Charter Oak is moving to the ITBD building in downtown New Britain. They will occupy two floors; the other floors will be occupied by the one community college, CSCC, even though it does not actually exist. They will start moving their staff to that location. That means also that CCSU will take over the Charter Oak building after the next BOR meeting, for purposes of admissions and registration. That is an interesting development.
  • Finally, Sen. Blitz noted that in the Infrastructure report, there is a list of various priorities. The last priority, number 13 (not likely to happen very soon), is for a CCSU STEM building and the proposal is to have a Phase I of $6.8M for an estimated $64.4M construction for an additional building to supplement Copernicus Hall, which will be used by “health services.” Sen. Blitz interpreted they may mean allied health departments and STEM departments. It is expected for FY23 for the design and FY25 for the construction.
• Questions:
  • Sen. Hernandez asked if we know of the timeline for the Charter Oak move to ITBD. Sen. Blitz deferred to the administration, for more details. The resolutions from the Board say “will be transitioned” but does not specify the dates of those transitions. President Latour indicated this is probably a question for Sal Cintorino and he would contact him to find out.
  • Sen. Zering asked if the suggestion regarding the winter and spring courses taught by full-time faculty is that the courses be cancelled or reassigned to part-time faculty. Sen. Blitz noted that people at the BOR seemed pretty confused on the topic. His reading is that if you have to part-time lecturers and you do not want to cut the “real” part-time lecturers (those paid per course), then cut the number of the full-time faculty teaching in winter and summer. Sen. Blitz pointed out that since winter and summer courses are taught on a revenue-generating basis, this is not a savings, but a revenue loss not only to the faculty, but to the university. So, assuming that the current costs of $1700 per course per student translates to $17K in tuition revenue and the university is paying $6,000 to either a part- or full-time faculty (who use same pay scale), the university is losing $11,000 by meeting the BOR amendment objective. It does not make sense.
  • Sen. Leonidas noted he too had some difficulty following the logic about cancelling summer courses and wanted to point out that in many cases, summer courses are not ancillary, particularly at the graduate level where we have many programs that run a full term during the summer (e.g., summer cohorts, summer matriculations.) These are not courses that can be reassigned to part-timers or cancelled without having devastating effects on those programs. He noted there is a proposal coming up later for Educational Leadership to add a summer matriculation for one of its programs. Those programs are dependent on summer offerings. D. Blitz noted he would add this to his comments at the Board meeting.
  • Senator Zadi asked for someone to explain how the BOR makes decisions, whether they listen to the FAC, and whether they must take the FAC’s recommendations. Sen. Blitz noted that the State Statutes indicate that the role of the FAC is advisory, but the BOR does not listen. He said their advice is routinely rejected and that the BOR operates based on spreadsheets and has no clear understanding of the academic consequences of their decisions. For example, in the budget amendment passed by the BOR two meetings ago, the recissions to the Graduate Assistants budget would have mounted to cutting 2/3 of the graduate assistants at CCSU. They did not do that calculation; they just came up with a dollar amount on a spreadsheet and brought it to the Board, which approve it. They did not consult with the university presidents, the CFOs, or the university planning and budget committees.
  • Sen. Zadi asked if there were consequences if the BOR does not take the advice of the FAC. Sen. Blitz indicated that bad decisions get made, citing the GA example he just gave and a course at the community colleges designed to serve multiple purposes. He cited a report written by a 22-year-old Yale student and summed up the micromanaging that is occurring that the BOR level. The objection that the FAC is making is that the BOR should stop the micromanagement. President Latour reframed the question, asking whether there are consequences if Section 185 of the State statutes are not followed. Sen. Blitz said that this issue will be brought up in January and they will be raising several areas where the BOR is not following the statutes; the FAC will also bring up this matter with the legislature.
  • Sen. Austad asked if summer courses should just be reassigned from full-time faculty to part-time faculty. Sen. Blitz clarified that they want the sections cancelled to save money. The nuance is that they want the part-time sections taught by the full-time faculty cancelled.
  • Sen. Mahony stated she suspects they do know what they are doing and want faculty to teach summer and winter without getting paid. Fred indicated that this could be accomplished by the three terms that were proposed in the new AAUP contract.

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• Reminder: interviews for the candidates for the position of Vice President for Equity and Inclusion are happening this week. All forums will be virtual; there are morning and afternoon forums for faculty.
• Today is the last day of classes, which means that several deadlines occurring soon; the withdrawal deadline is today and the deadline for completing work for grades of Incomplete given last semester is tomorrow.
• Final exams begin on Wednesday, and grades are due on December 22.
• There was an email sent by someone associated with the BOR concerning training that needs to be complete to have access to certain data. It was titled Annual CSCU Information Security Awareness Training. Most of us received it; we were told the deadline is December 15 and that if you do not complete it by that time, you will not have access to the protected enclave. Fred asked George Claffey to speak more. He explained that this has been run by the BOR for the last four or five years; the enclave is the area in which we have secured student data. The timing of this annual requirement is not ideal, but the campus does not control that. If you need an extension, please contact A. Kullgren and we can facilitate an extension. To date, no one has been prevented access. Amy noted that Banner and WebNow are in the secure enclave, so if you have access to those systems, you were put on the list to undergo this training.

3. Committee Reports (reports marked with an asterisk are informational reports intended for consent agenda only; if you would like a report to be discussed, please inform the President and Secretary by Monday, noon)  

a. Curriculum Committee (K. McGrath)

• Prof. Kate McGrath, Vice Chair of Curriculum Committee, called attention to the following:
  • There was a minor change to IS 240 – language, description, and prerequisite.
  • For information only (up for vote in curriculum next round) – a new graduation requirement for Equity, Justice, and Inclusion (in the American context) is detailed in the report.
  • There is also a preliminary list of courses that meet the EJI requirement. If you have a course to be added to the package, please contact William Mann or Beth Merenstein.
  • The EJI designation would apply to a course, not a section of a course taught by a certain faculty.
  • The course allows for double counting; both EJI and Gen Ed, much like the current International requirement.
  • A rubric was shared with all academic department chairs. President Latour asked for it to be shared with him and the Senate Secretary so it could be shared with the meeting minutes.
  • President Latour noted he has already received a request to remove the Bachelor of General Studies proposal from the consent agenda and asked whether anyone wanted anything else removed from the consent agenda. Nothing else was removed from the consent agenda. A motion to approve the Curriculum Committee report with the exception of the BGS was made, seconded, put up for discussion and approved unanimously.
  • A motion was made to approve the Bachelor of General Studies. It was seconded and put for discussion.
  • Sen. Blitz opened discussion by saying he was surprised to see that this is being presented as simply as a course modification and not without a substantial research repot based on facts and figures as to how many members of the general public and how many of our current students would be interested in such a program, and he stated he finds it really deficient in terms of background research. With that said, he added one more pint: there are different categories of students who could benefit from this and he would understand a BGS for returning student who has been away from the university for a certain, specified number of years, who makes the case s/he is already working in a field and that to be advanced in the workplace, s/he needs a bachelor’s degree. No major or minor is needed or wanted, just a degree. We have had requests like this before. Secondly, we have some students who have 120 credits or more and who are wandering around or “marooned” who do not satisfy the GPA requirement to graduate from a professional program or the business school. We need to know how many are there? One of the arguments in the past was that they satisfied all the requirements, but they do not have the GPA to get the degree. The third category, which seems permitted, states students after 62 credits can request the BGS. Do we have an idea about how many of our current students would want to do so? Could we do a survey? Do we have students with more than 62 students who do not want a major or minor, but simply want a degree? There is an implication to this: a student coming from a community college with an associate’s degree declaring they want a BGS. The BOR has spent many tens of millions on the guided pathways and transfer articulation agreements so that students graduating from the community colleges could matriculate directly into a major in a seamless manner. This proposal contradicts what the BOR has specified as its desire for students graduating from one of our community colleges. Sen. Blitz indicated he can imagine that a member of the Academic Affairs Committee would reject this because it does not consider one of the few things that is working at the CCs – mainly the guided pathways and the articulation agreements. He stated he would like to move that this be returned to the Curriculum Committee for further research in terms of the number of returning and current students who are interested in this and the number of currently “marooned” students who cannot graduate because they do not meet GPA requirements, and he would also like to see clarification with regards to recent graduates of community colleges. Without making a complicated motion, he motioned that this be returned to the Curriculum Committee. Sen Chakraborty seconded the motion.
  • Sen. Harris noted he was on the committee that drafted the BGS proposal and acknowledged they did not put all their research into the proposal. He stated that two years ago in the School of Business there were 22 people who would not be able to satisfy the GPA requirement and other professional schools had similar numbers, some higher and some lower. The committee did discuss at some length the question of the community college transfer. One of the stipulations of the current proposal is that a student cannot just register into this program by themselves; they have to go through a counseling process with an advisor, and that everyone is committed to not suggesting this as a path of first choice, and that someone just transferring here, as Sen. Blitz noted, who has finished an Associate’s degree has a path open to them to complete a degree that will have a much more appeal in the employment market. He noted that this is a lifeline for a substantial number of our students, and it is irresponsible of us not to have some way to graduate a student who has become “marooned”.
  • Sen. Leonidas pointed out that the BGS admission process, in the Academic Standards report, would require meeting with an academic dean or the dean’s BGS representative.
  • Dean Wolff noted he comes to the BGS proposal as a late convert and that ten years ago he would have opposed this for several reasons, but he has learned a lot in the last few years. He noted that retention and graduation rates are dropping and one of the reasons is that some students are sheared off from a program and do not have an off-ramp. The retention rate is lowest in CLASS. Several students come for a professional program, transfer into CLASS (so they do not count in our retention numbers), and yet they still flounder. Blocking these students from completing means they leave us with 20-30 credits and a certain among of debt. The BGS would benefit them. We do not want students to see the BGS as an ideal program, but every other public university in Connecticut has this degree, offering an option for students to move on with their lives.
  • Sen. Chakraborty indicated he and his department are in agreement with Sen. Blitz. He believes this option should be there for our students, but the kinks that Sen. Blitz noted need to be worked out before it can be passed.
  • Sen. McGrath indicated this was on the agenda, has gone through the curriculum process meant as a forum for academic departments to voice their concerns through their representatives.
  • The question was called. The motion to call the question was put to a vote, and passed.
  • The original motion to send the BGS proposal back to the Curriculum Committee was put to a vote. (A Yes vote means send it back to the Curriculum Committee; a No vote means discussion would continue.) The vote was tied, and the President of the Senate voted to break the tie. President Latour voted Yes and the motion to return the proposal to the Curriculum Committee carried (28-27).

b. Academic Standards Committee (E. Leonidas)

• The report was presented by Senator Leonidas, who called attention to two issues:
  • A proposal from the Physical Education Department for the Dance Education Major – they have split into two specializations.
  • Admissions policy for the BGS program, which Sen. Leonidas felt should be postponed and then come back to the Senate when the BGS proposal comes back from the Curriculum Committee. There was no objection to removing this item from the report.
• Sen. Foster asked if there is already a teacher certification program in Dance Education that is a stand-alone program, not something to be obtained via cross-endorsement. Dean Kostelis confirmed there is initial certification for the Dance Education program.
• A motion to approve the Academic Standards report was put forward for a vote. The motion was approved.

c. Graduate Studies Committee (E. Leonidas)

• Sen. Leonidas presented the Fall report for the Graduate Studies Committee. He highlighted that the committee was dismayed by the attack on Graduate Assistants noting it is often the case that graduate students could not attend if it were not for graduate assistants.
• A motion to approve the Graduate Studies Report was put forward for a vote. The motion was approved unanimously.

d. Information Technology Committee (S. Barnett)

• After seeing the BOR’s proposed changes to the AAUP contract, the ITC has proposal a statement concerning faculty decision-making in distance learning and ownership of individual property rights.
• Sen. Blitz requested that the Senate not only accept but endorse this statement. He indicated this issue has come up now and again, since 1995, when CCSU first began offering distance learning courses.
• A motion to endorse the ITC statement was put to a vote. The motion passed unanimously.

4. New Business

a. Approval of December 2020/January 2021 candidates for graduation

• Approved unanimously.

b. Faculty Senate Response to BOR ACME Proposal

• Commentary on Proposal (courtesy of SCSU, with additions in red), and SCSU Resolution
• Proposed CCSU resolution

• F. Latour presented the BOR ACME proposal which proposes sweeping changes to how community colleges offer developmental mathematics and English courses. There are several significant areas of concern: self-reported high school GPA would be the major indicator of what developmental courses a student begins with. Students would then take an initial course, without a prerequisite, as their introductory course. At the same time, there would be embedded support at the level most appropriate to the students. Those courses would be accepted by the CSUs for transfer credit. This is problematic. The way the policy was developed was typical of how the BOR works: not embracing the concept of shared governance.
  • Commentary on Proposal and SCSU Resolution: SCSU has shared their resolution with us (link to it) and is seeking feedback. F. Latour made comments on SCSU’s document and it is shared on the community college website. The feedback window is open until 12/31/20, but when Fred attempted to make comments through the portal, as directed, it did not work. F. Latour then walked through the document highlighting the ramifications students will face at the CSUs if this proposed policy is implemented. He also noted that this proposal came out of one of the workgroups which faculty resigned from because their input was not being accepted. Yet, this proposal is being presented as if it had faculty input.
  • Proposed CCSU Resolution: F. Latour then presented SCSU’s resolution with modifications to reflect CCSU. Some brief discussion ensued, and a motion was made to approve the resolution. The motion passed 38/4.

c. School of Business Interdisciplinary programs

• The School of Business has several interdisciplinary programs, and they would like to create additional interdisciplinary programs. They would like to have a formal structure to govern those programs, as opposed to just having an informally appointed program director. The advantages include continuity of leadership in this area and a voice when other schools would like to develop interdisciplinary programs. They are seeking Faculty Senate feedback on the proposal.
• Dean Farhat added that the tradition has been for these programs to be informally assigned to a coordinator or director and when there is change, there is not any written materials in place for the subsequent program leadership to follow. The creation of the proposed structure would impose a formality to the work that has been getting done so there can be paper trail regarding what has been done and a structure for communicating with other academic schools on interdisciplinary programs that involve the School of Business.
• A faculty member asked whether there will be reassigned time for this role. Dean Farhat said this was likely.
• F. Latour sought questions on the proposal. Sen. Blitz asked why this position would not be elected by the School of Business Faulty Council but, rather, is to be appointed by the dean. He cited the AAUP contract and made the argument that the Council should recommend a faculty member to be appointed by the Dean. Dean Farhat indicated he did not consult that particular area of the contract and indicated he would revisit the article Sen. Blitz was citing.

5. Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m.