Faculty Senate

Minutes - February 22, 2021 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Adair, S.; Al-Masoud, N.; Atkinson, S.; Austad, C.; Basim, S.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Bonnici, J.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Chakraborty, S.; Chen, S.; Dischino, M.; Donohue, P.; Dumpson, N.; Duquette, J.; Elfant, A.; Flinn, B.; French, J.; Gamache, J.; Garceau, T.; Garcia-Bowen, M.; Garcia-Lozada, A.; Ghiloni-Wage, B.; Ghodsi, R.; Gichiru, W.; Given, E.; Gu, S.; He, F.; Hernandez, J.; Holt, J.; Hou, X.; Hughes, H.; Jarmoszko, T.; Jenkins, A.; Jones S.; Karas, R.; Knox, C.; Langevin, K.; Larsen, K.; Leonidas, E.; Lewis, M.; Mahony, M.A.; Martin, K.; Martin, V.; Matzke, B.; Mendez-Mendez, S.; Misbach, K.; Moreno-Fuentes, G.; Nicholson, B.; Orange, M.; Pancsofar, E.; Paolino, J.; Petras, S.; Phillips, E.; Rein, T.; Roark, E.; Ruhs, T.; Salama, T.; Salgado, E.; Santilli, M.; Schenck, S.; Scoggins, M.; Scott, T.; Sikorski, J.; Singhal, R.; Skinner, L.; Smith, J.; Smith, R.; Spear, E.; Spillman, D,; Strickland, A.; Styrczula, S.; Sylvester, C.; Tellier, A.; Wang, W.; Watson, S.; 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: Burkholder, T.; Casamento, C.; Davis, W.; Fallon, M.; Goode, G.; Kirby, Y.; Kuo, B.; Lee, B.; Magnan, C.; Mann, W.; Merenstein, B.; Miller, S.; Pana, E.; Peckham, K.; Thomas, J.; Tully, J.; Wood, R.

1. Minutes

a. Minutes of February 8, 2021

• Approved

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP (L. Williams)

• Please encourage people to attend the event this Friday at 10:45 a.m. for 45 minutes on the street in front of Davidson Hall for the AAUP Press Conferences on the BOR’s contract proposals. Legislators and members of the press have been invited and the event is open to everyone on campus. AAUP masks and red scarves will be distributed.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (L. Bigelow)

• The next Chapter meeting is on March 10th at noon.

c. SGA (B. Kuo)

• G. Goode noted there were no announcements, but he offered to take questions back to the SGA, if any.

d. John Lewis Institute for Social Justice (E. Phillips)

• President Latour invited Prof. Evelyn Phillips to discuss the John Lewis Institute For the last nine months faculty and staff have been working on the development and opening of the John Lewis Institute for Social Justice (JLI). The institute, spearheaded by President Toro, will be launched this coming Thursday, Feb. 25th, at 3 p.m. The Institute is designed to help students become empowered in social justice by offering 12-15 students opportunities to study social justice issues for three hours every month, to participate in internships and to become socially engaged in their communities. Hopefully, when they leave the university they will be empowered to go into the field of social justice or apply the principles of social justice in whatever field they choose. Scott Pioli will be the founding Chair of the Institute will also be at the grand opening, as well as other political officials. This is an exciting time for CCSU and advances us to another category in terms of what we are doing to empower our students, to help them feel comfortable in a world that still faces inequalities. Students may come from any departments, not just the social sciences. There will be an application process leading to the acceptance of students into the program.
• Sen. Blitz asked about the relationship between the Institute and the minor in social justice offered by the Department of Philosophy. Dr. Philips indicated there is no relationship with that program, further stating this student—focused institute is non-credit bearing, although they will get a certificate upon completing the JLI training.
• Sen. Blitz also asked whether this Institute received approval by the Board of Regents. President Toro responded to this question indicating that it is her position that this is a student development program and therefore does not have to be approved by the Board, according to their own policy pertaining to centers and institutes. The policy makes clear that student development programs like the JLI are not subject to the policy. Although there is a difference in opinion on whether this institute requires BOR approval, she is of the mind that it does not. She cited other similar centers and institutes at other CSCU institutions that were not put through the BOR approval process. D. Blitz commented that he agreed with President Toro in that this is an internal matter, not subject to BOR interference.
• S. Mendez-Mendez spoke in favor of the position that this is an internal matter and suggested the Senate make a statement supporting the JLI. F. Latour indicated that he felt more information would be needed to do that.
• Dr. Philips encouraged everyone to attend the event on Thursday.

e. Early Learning Program Board of Directors (R. Wood)

• Representing the ELP Board in her capacity of President of that Board, announced that the Vice President of the Board of Directors for the ELP is vacant. She described the ELP program and the constituents it serves, discussed the nexus to the CCSU curriculum, and described the role of the Vice President. F. Latour posted contact information for R. wood in the chat. Interested parties should respond to her directly.

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

• The FAC presented a report at the December meeting of the Board. It was a 24-page report, and it took 12-15 minutes to present. However, when the BOR minutes were issued, the sum total of the description of the report was to say the report had been presented and the presenters were thanked. At the same meeting, President Ojakian made a report consisting of one-and-a-half pages, including 21 lines criticizing the FAC report. In the preliminary minutes that were sent out, the link to the FAC report was a bad link, leading to a different document. D. Blitz asked that an amendment to the minutes be created to add the following:
  • The FAC Chair Blitz and Vice Chair Sesanker reported on FAC concerns on a few issues, including the doubling of levels of management at the community college level, doubling of the System Office-controlled budget, reduction in faculty role in curriculum and shared governance, micromanagement by the Board, such as the budget amendment and College and Career Success course, and lack of review and revision of major policies by the Board (such as Students First.) Suggestions for improvement of the relations between the FAC and the Board were proposed, joint meetings and regular reports and a set of 10 guiding principles for public higher education were presented. President Fleury did read out the content of the FAC’s amendment to the minutes and at least one Board member spoke positively about it.
• As we were having the FAC meeting on Friday, a 22-page pamphlet, Putting Students First in Connecticut, was being circulated at the community colleges. It was authored by a consultant, Christopher Baldwin. The document minimized the concerns of faculty and referring to the “reluctant warriors” as a group that failed to offer a viable alternative. Regarding the unions, they cited their resistance, calling their pushback unorganized. The report did acknowledge that communication with the unions could have been better.
• At the Finance and Infrastructure meeting held jointly with the HR meeting, the 3 regional presidents presented reports. They are trying to raise outside money and share resources on a rational basis. If we look at complex, hierarchical organization, there are varying levels of centralization. What we have with Students First is over-centralization combined with de-localization. This is an issue to be revisited. It is an interesting development to have a regional sector; it can be done well and can be done poorly. The indicators available so far suggest we are going in the wrong direction.
• Regarding alignment of Criminal Justice and Criminology courses across the system. Independent of Students First, this alignment has been done well. Community college faculty are willing to align their programs on a rational basis on their own self-direction. Of over 400 programs, the Criminal Justice/Criminology alignment is the only one that has been approved. The remaining, over 400, are supposedly going to be aligned over the next 6 months and that task seems impossibly.
• The FAC is working with the same people the Union is working with on the Higher Education Committee regarding the questions surrounding the consolidation. Blitz indicated Sen. Adair may have more information to share on that topic.
• Sen. Adair shared there is bill before the legislature right now (perhaps 1602) which is a very simple bill that says there shall be a study of higher education in the State. There is a proposal to have much more specific language in the bill, with a specific focus on what has happened in the past 4 years and under Students First. The goal is to have an ad hoc committee work on this and have faculty and students on the committee. This was discussed at the AAUP meeting last week and the AAUP lobbyist had some good suggestions. The alternative language has been shared with one of the co-chairs of the Higher Ed committee, Josh Elliott, and he seems supportive of moving it forward. There will be a public comment period.
• F. Latour asked if his thought that the Board is hiring consultants to prepare their propaganda was on track. Sen. Blitz agreed it was. C. Austad confirmed it as well. Fred asked how to go about getting the terms of the contract. S. Mendez-Mendez made a motion to FOIA the contract. Sen. Adair indicated that this would be a moot point, since AAUP already intends to make this request.

g. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• F. Latour reiterated the Senate is still receiving information on how decisions of the BOR have negatively impacted students.
• President Latour introduced Dr. Stacey Miller, Vice President for Equity and Inclusion, who joined the CCSU staff today. Dr. Miller introduced herself and said she is happy to be at CCSU and eager to get to work, and to meet campus community members individually. Fred officially welcomed her on behalf of the Faculty Senate.
• Fred noted the Governor’s recent announcement of an age-based expansion of vaccine eligibility. He encouraged everyone to monitor the vaccine eligibility system and make arrangements if they desired to get the vaccine.

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 (T. Burkholder)

• F. Latour noted that the large number of proposals and minor changes (over 400) was because this is the last report that goes into the next catalog. F. Latour asked for a motion to divide the report into sections, beginning with item 3 above, then a discussion of the BGS, and then discussion of the EJI. Fred asked whether anyone had a fourth section to propose for separate discussion. Nothing was added.
• MOTION: to divide the question of the Curriculum Committee report into three sections as noted above. Motion passed 51:1.

Section 1: Discussion of the consent agenda items and minor changes. No questions were raised.

• MOTION: to accept the entirety of the report, except for the BGS and EJI designation. Motion passed 59:0.

Section 2: Discussion of the Bachelor of General Studies proposal.

• Sen. Knox asked what department would get credit for the graduation of someone in the BGS? For example, what if most credits were taken in Music. Would the Music department get credited for the graduate? Dean Wolff indicated the teaching load credit would go to the department for the courses student took in the department. In terms of degree completion, it would be handled like Special Studies. Teaching credit will always go to the faculty member’s home department. To address the specific question asked about a BGS student with emphasis in Music, Dean Wolff said it was likely that the School/College would get credit.
• D. Blitz expressed pleasure at seeing that a one semester residency was now required, though he had hoped it would be one year. He emphasized the importance of getting the report(s) approved at the last meeting because it will be important to know why students ended up in the BGS. He had hoped to see this in the report. Prof. Merenstein indicated that this issue was raised in committee and the committee felt it was not within their purview but thought someone could made an amendment at the Senate meeting, which Sen. Blitz did.
• MOTION: to amend the BGS proposal: A report be submitted to the Faculty Senate by Fall 2023 and that it include the number of students who applied to, were admitted to, and graduated from the program, along with relevant specific categories defined by the committee, describing applicant type, including returned students, etc.
• Sen. Mendez-Mendez spoke in favor of the motion. He stated the report should be as comprehensive as possible. Who is enrolling? What background credit did they bring into the BGS? What is the rate of completion? And, if possible, what is the rate of employment once finished with the BGS. Sen. Mendez-Mendez made a motion to amend Sen. Blitz’s motion to include that the Curriculum Committee members (or Dean Wolff) will annually present a brief report to the Senate.
• MOTION: to amend Blitz motion passed. 39:14
• Further discussion of the amendment resumed. A question was asked about how long the reporting would continue. The answer was under Fall 2023. It will be determined at that time whether the reporting would need to continue.
• MOTION: to approve the Blitz amendment, as amended. Motion passed. 47:3.
• Discussion of the BGS continued. Sen. Al-Masoud asked what type of jobs exist for a graduate with a BGS. Sen. Mendez-Mendez seconded this concern, although he said this should not be a roadblock, just a data point that should be monitored. Sen. Adair asked if this must go to NECHE as a new degree. Y. Kirby it does not. Sen. Langevin stated the support of the Nursing Department, which sees this as an off-ramp for students who cannot complete a nursing degree, but could go on for further study, including accelerated programs. She also stated that this degree is offered by Southern and Western. Sen. Bishop noted the admissions gatekeeper and repeated the language in the proposal concerning where the student would receive advisement. She asked whether advising would occur before or after being accepted to the program. It was clarified that an advisor would be assigned after acceptance. Sen. Garcia-Bowen asked whether this would align with general studies programs at the community college level and whether a student needed to earn 60 credits beyond the AS degree. Sen. Merenstein said that this could be discussed and what makes most sense will be pursued in each case. Sen. Mahony stated that she knows individuals with a BGS, and most of them completed this degree after leaving school, working for a couple of decades, and then going back to school. Many of them now have graduate degrees. She stated she understands concerns (e.g., we become a diploma mill), but she has confidence in the BGS.
• MOTION: to clarify the language in the proposal stating that “once admitted” get added to the section on advisement. F. Latour declared unanimous consent to this clarification.
• MOTION: to accept the portion of the Curriculum Committee report on the BGS. Motion approved 50:0.

Section 3: Discussion of the Equity, Justice, and Inclusion (EJI) proposal

• Prof. Merenstein indicated this has passed all subcommittees and the main Curriculum Committee as well. Course lists have been developed so that students can easily identify which courses meet this graduation (not GenEd) requirement. She also noted the suggestion that ever department also create a Topics course that meets EJI requirements. Several senators spoke regarding potentially higher burdens for some students to graduate.
• MOTION: to accept the portion of the Curriculum Committee report on the new EJI graduation requirement. Motion passed 51:1.

4. Unfinished Business

a. Follow-up to School of Business Interdisciplinary programs

• Proposal for policy on Interdisciplinary Program Directors
• It was pointed out at a previous meeting that there is no policy for selecting Interdisciplinary program directors right now. There are parallels to academic departments and department chairs, so it would make sense to model the policy on the policy for electing department chairs, however the question of who gets to vote arises. A draft policy for Interdisciplinary Program Director Selection was presented. The document will be on the Senate website for review and come back to the Senate for a vote at the next meeting.

b. Update - Senate Policies on online courses and other matters: looking ahead to the “new normal”

• Pres. Latour presented a list of names of the people who are willing to represent the affected constituencies on the ad hoc committee. He is still waiting to hear from a few of the constituents. He is hoping the committee can be convened by the end of the current semester.

5. New Business

a. Posthumous Master of Business Administration for Ms. Heatherly Whelahan Carlson

• President Latour presented the School of Business’s proposal to award Heatherly Whelahan Carlson the MBA degree posthumously. Fred paid tribute to the deceased and asked for a moment of silence in her honor.
• MOTION: to award the MBA degree posthumously to Heatherly Whelahan Carlson. Motion passed unanimously.

b. Netiquette guidelines for Listserv

• The netiquette guidelines for the Senate listserv could not be approved because they did not comply with the First Amendment. Atty. Carolyn Magnan presented an amended version of the netiquette guidelines, which are in compliance with the First Amendment. She reviewed the changes she made, giving the rationale and examples for each.
• Sen. Blitz reminded everyone that rules of the road were put together because the pervious listserv was abused but there were still some sections of the guidelines that should remain. C. Magnan said that time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed, but if we say they “should respect the culture, etc.” and try to remove someone for not adhering to it, it is afoul of the First Amendment. She cautioned that we tread carefully. Sen. Latour asked whether we could say that the ListServ can only be used to discuss certain topics and state that posts about topics not on the list violate the rules. Carolyn indicated that #5 addresses this.
• Sen. Smith asked a clarifying question: this is all because we are a public institution, correct? Carolyn agreed. She further clarified that when the university creates a forum, it gives rights to people and their First Amendment rights cannot be abridged.
• MOTION: to approve the changes to the Netiquette Guidelines for the Senate listserv. Motion approved 34:2.

6. Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.