Faculty Senate

Minutes - February 8, 2021 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Adair, S.; Al-Masoud, N.; Atkinson, S.; Austad, C.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Chakraborty, S.; Chen, S.; Dumpson, N.; Duquette, J.; Elfant, A.; Foster, P.; French, J.; Gamache, J.; Garcia-Bowen, M.; Ghiloni-Wage, B.; Ghodsi, R.; Gichiru, W.; Given, E.; Gu, S.; Hernandez, J.; Holt, J.; Hou, X.; Jain, A.; Jarmoszko, T.; Jenkins, A.; Jones S.; Karas, R.; Knox, C.; Kreeger, J.; Langevin, K.; Leonidas, E.; Lewis, M.; Mahony, M.A.; Martin, V.; Matzke, B.; Mendez-Mendez, S.; Moreno-Fuentes, G.; Nicholson, B.; Orange, M.; Pancsofar, E.; Phillips, E.; Rein, T.; Roark, E.; Ruhs, T.; Salama, T.; Salgado, E.; Schenck, S.; Scoggins, M.; Singhal, R.; Skinner, L.; Smith, J.; Smith, R.; Spear, E.; Spillman, D,; Strickland, A.; Styrczula, S.; Sylvester, C.; Tellier, A.; 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: Barnett, S.; Fallon, M.; Gonzalez, K.; Goode, G.; Hall, L.; Kirby, Y.; Kuo, B.; Misra, K.; Palmer, J.; Pana, E.; Thomas, J.

1. Minutes

a. Minutes of November 30, 2020

b. Minutes of December 7, 2020

• Corrections to the minutes of December 7, 2020: Dean Farhat noted that something was missing from the last bullet about the School of Business’s Interdisciplinary Program proposal: Any feedback or information should be submitted to the Senate President and School of Business Dean by December 31, 2020. The minutes will be corrected to reflect this.
• Senator Mendez-Mendez motioned for approval. The motion was seconded by and the minutes were approved unanimously.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP (L. Williams)

• Contract negotiations are the main thing AAUP is working on tight now. AAUP has exchanged proposals with management and the first negotiation session has taken place. It was clear in that session that the BOR is very serious about the proposals they have put on the table. See the AAUP website for more information about the proposals.
• AAUP will publish Table Talk after every negotiation session. It expresses our concerns about the seriousness of the proposals.
• AAUP has formed an organizing committee and it is working on many different things.
• Things to take back to your departments:
  • Read Table Talk.
  • The Organizing Committee is sending out email blasts every week or biweekly. It will include information on how AAUP members can help. We need people to help.
  • The BOR meeting is February 18. AAUP is hoping faculty will speak to how the proposals will negatively impact accreditation of the institution and individual programs. AAUP is also getting students to speak.
  • Please email your legislators and attend meetings with them that AAUP organizes.
  • Contact your program alumni to tell them what is happening.
  • Talk with your current students about how the proposals will affect them.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (L. Bigelow)

• SUOAF has received management’s initial set of contract proposals. SUOAF will not be “going public” with the proposals, however it can be said that having read the AAUP proposal, nothing was a surprise to us.
• We are working with President Toro to develop a plan to meet the operational needs of the university for the remainder of the spring semester, without compromising the continued health and safety of our members.
• The Local is working with AFSCME Council 4 to arrange meetings between legislators and groups of members in their districts to educate the legislators about the value of our contributions to the state and to appeal for increased funding for the CSUs.
• The next Chapter meeting is this Wednesday, February 10, at noon on Teams.

c. SGA (B. Kuo)

• The SGA is holding a special Spring election right now and there are several seats open. Students have three more days to apply.
• SGA’s Finance committee is working on enhancing SGA scholarships, informed by student survey about how they wanted the SGA to use surplus budget funds. Increased scholarship opportunities were the most popular choice.

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

• The next meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) is this Friday at 1 p.m. It is an open meeting; the agenda and the link are on the BOR website. D. Blitz can also share information on how to attend the meeting if contacted.
  • Interim CSCU President Jane Gates will be a guest at the meeting to discuss and issue we discussed at Senate which is the BOR’s proposal to eliminate remedial math and English courses and, instead to make these courses co-requisites. Reminder: we had a resolution, critical of that proposal, within the last two meetings.
• The Advisory Committee to select the new president of the CSCU will have its first meeting with the list of applicant names. Dr. Blitz noted he is bound by confidentiality; however, it is okay to share that the faculty on the committee have a few concerns and have met to discuss them. One of them is the lack of any public interviews of the finalists. Faculty are not persuaded that this is needed to attract good quality candidates.
• There was a meeting held at Sen. Blitz’s request with him, FAC Chair Colena Sesanker, CSCU Interim President Gates, BOR Chair Fleury, Merle Harris, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee and Alice Pritchard to clarify and normalize the relationship between the FAC and the BOR pursuant to Section 185 of the Connecticut General Statues, which not only designates the committee as advisory but also indicates that the FAC is to assist the Board. So far, we have been in opposition and disregarded by the BOR. We propose to hold a joint meeting between the FAC and the BOR, required by the statutes and for the FAC to regularly report at every BOR meeting, like other BOR committees. The BOR does not appear to support either of these proposals. We discussed better cooperation between the FAC, ex officio members of the Board and the various committee chairs (i.e., Finance Committee amendment to cut University Assistants and Graduate Assistants.) We have left this issue pending and a follow-up meeting is planned for March. We were looking for common ground. There was some, but we are still quite far apart.
• The Finance Committee, relative to the point Sen. Williams made, will be meeting next week and Sen. Blitz will be requesting the fiscal liability of the universities. He reminded the Senate that Students First made the case the community colleges were not fiscally viable and went on to spur a power grab in which even the curriculum was not up to the faculty. We see the beginning of this in the BOR’s AAUP contract proposal. This meeting is also an open meeting. Senators should contact Dr. Blitz if they need information on how to access the meeting.
• D. Blitz is now vice chair of the FAC; the chair is Colena Sesanker representing the community colleges.

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• At the last meeting we had a request to submit a FOIA request to obtain information about the BOR and its dealings with the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). It turns out that the FOIA request produced absolutely nothing, which indicates they are not working with the BCG. If you look at the State’s contract, available online, higher education is specifically excluded from that contract.
• It is my duty to inform you when the President of the University has an issue with a Senate bill. Two of the bills passed last semester have been flagged: the guidelines for netiquette on the Senate list-serv are not compliant with the U.S. Constitution. This will come to the next meeting. The other bill that was flagged says that a modification to the Senate Constitution must go out to the full faculty for approval and if approved, becomes official at that time. That is consistent with the AAUP contract. This will also be deferred to later in the semester because it makes the most sense to address this issue at the same time the Senate conducts the Spring elections.
• ACME policy – We approved a statement on the ACME proposal, but it turns out that submitting the comments was not easy. People outside the System Office and community colleges were prevented from accessing the feedback portal. F. Latour communicated with the other Senate presidents at the universities and they reported a similar problem, one that they communicated to the System Office. It was not resolved.

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. Academic Standards Committee (E. Leonidas)

• The Vice Chair of the committee, Prof. Elisabeta Pana, presented the report. She reviewed two proposals: School of Business admission requirements and the Nursing Department admission requirements.
• The first pertains to changes in the School of Business admission requirements. The proposal rectifies an inaccurate assumption made during the implementation of Degree Works. Some assumptions were made that were not intended in the policy. The new language clarifies that. A correction was made to an incorrect date in section 2a of the report (11/24/202 was changed to 11/24/2020.)
• The second proposal was the Nursing Department proposal to make three changes to its admission policies:
  • 1. Establishment of a Direct Admissions policy for first time college admissions beginning with the Fall 2021 admissions cycle. Many other nursing programs in the state have instituted a direct admissions policy and to be competitive, we would like to do the same.
  • 2. The elimination of a December 1 University admission deadline for transfer students and;
  • 3. Allow for spring semester admissions to pre-Nursing.
• The report was approved unanimously.

4. Unfinished Business

a. School of Business Interdisciplinary programs

• At our last meeting, the School of Business Dean presented a proposal for the School of Business Interdisciplinary Program. In compliance with policy, the School of Business had to ask for the Senate’s opinion and feedback. We sought feedback and the revised proposal is the result of that feedback having been incorporated. The School of Busines would like this to be in place as soon as possible.
• Dean Farhat addressed the size of the MBA (200-250 active students) and the Minor in Business for Non-Business Majors (175-200) so on average, the School of Business has e between 375 and 450 students in interdisciplinary programs. This is larger than the enrollment in three School of Business departments combined.
• “When possible” was added to item 7 because not all the School’s faculty will be able to advise students in the IDP because there are a significant number of non-tenured faculty (almost half of the School of Business faculty) and the School needs to make sure that it is not assigning too heavy of an advising load to these faculty.
• Dean Farhat indicated that he reviewed the AAUP contract related to the election of the director. He reviewed articles 5.14, 5.23 and 5.24 and could not find language about chair election. Right now, all directors are appointed. He noted this is a unique program and it does not behave like a department.
• Dear Farhat noted that F. Latour asked for a clarification regarding the election process. Having reviewed Robert’s Rules, he amended the sections accordingly.
• Dean Farhat hopes that this can be moved forward at today’s meeting. He expressed gratitude for those who provided feedback.
• D. Blitz indicated the question he raised at the last meeting still has not been resolved: the election of the director. He indicated that there are two things that can be done: amend it to include, on page 3, the election of the director, to be forwarded and named by the Provost or table this and refer it to the Shared Governance Committee (SGC).
• Dean Farhat noted that the charge of the SGC is clear. This work was done in the School of Business Council of Chairs. The chairs sought the input of the faculty, their feedback was incorporated into the document, and the Dean believes they followed Article 5.14 and does not believe that referral to the SGC is appropriate.
• D. Blitz read from page 3, where it said, “the director of the IDP will be appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs upon the recommendation of the Dean” and suggested adding “subsequent to the election by the faculty concerned.” Dean Farhat identified “concerned faculty as the problem, given it was an interdisciplinary program. Sen. Blitz noted this is done with all other interdisciplinary programs. He cited this as a major issue of faculty control over curriculum and election of department chairs and program directors who have a status in the contract equivalent to the department chairs.
• F. Latour noted that if you review the contract, there is a statement that it is part of Article 5.24, and he read from the contract: “Department Chairpersons, Academic Division Directors, Area Directors and Interdisciplinary Program Directors shall be selected in accordance with university procedures. These members shall serve until completion of their terms as specified by university policy.” In the case of Department Chairs, there is a clear university policy: a three-year term, department chairs are elected by faculty in the department, and the election is supposed to be done in the 4th semester of the incumbent’s term. So, the policy is very clear for department chairs. F. Latour asked both Dean Farhat and Sen. Blitz if either of them has any sense that there is a policy in place for selecting area directors and interdisciplinary program directors. Dean Farhat responded that he is not aware of any. Dr. Blitz noted that there is a uniform and consistent past practice: faculty form an interdisciplinary group should elect the director and that the dean may differ on this, as he may differ on the election of a department chair. To do anything else, he said, is taking a step back from shared governance and faculty control of the curriculum.
• F. Latour offered alternate language: adding “in accordance with university policy on selection of IDP program directors” at the end of “The director of the IDP will be appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs upon the recommendation of the Dean.” Sen Latour observed that the university does not have a set policy. Rather, it has a tradition. Therefore, codifying this tradition into a policy could happen at the next meeting. Neither Dean Farhat nor Senator Blitz objected. F. Latour suggested Dean Farhat come back at the next meeting with a policy on interdisciplinary programs directors in the academic area. D. Blitz withdrew his amendment in favor of F. Latour’s proposal. It was seconded.
• A poll was conducted to add “in accordance with university policy” for the selection of IDP directors and develop such a policy for the next meeting. The motion was approved unanimously (56:0). The amendment passed.
• A poll was conducted on the proposal, as amended. The vote was 48:1. The advice of the Senate is that it approves of the document, as amended.

5. New Business

a. Approval of Faculty Senate Steering Committee member

• Kevin Kean, part-time faculty representative to the Senate, cannot attend Senate and Senate Steering Committee meetings this semester because of a conflict with a class he is teaching. Sen. Salgado has been invited to join the Steering Committee, which requires approval of the Senate. F. Latour made a motion to appoint Sen. Salgado to the Steering Committee. Senator Mendez-Mendez seconded the motion. A poll was conducted, and Sen. Salgado was unanimously approved as a member of the Steering Committee (52:0)

b. Call for information from faculty on how Board of Regents’ decisions have negatively impacted students

• F. Latour noted that talk in Senate is often about policies passed by the BOR which either have a negative impact on our students or are not in compliance with State statues. F. Latour asked faculty for specific examples to be shared with the Steering Committee to provide them with specific examples to discuss with State legislators.
• After brief discussion, Senator Mendez-Mendez made a motion to request members of the Senate to submit any information about any action of the BOR that has negatively impacted the academic experience, retention, or recruitment of students and to submit them to the President of the Senate for consideration at the next meeting. Sen. Bishop seconded the motion. F. Latour clarified that information submitted should not contain student names. The motion was approved unanimously (47:0)

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

• F. Latour has received request from several committees to look at how we could amend various policies and processes, that are Senate approved, to take into the fact that there might be more faculty interested in teaching online in the future. Right now, we have a limit of 40 undergraduate sections online each semester and that limit has never been reached, so there has never been the challenging process of determining which courses could be offered. Is that really what we want the future to look like? Are there some amendments that we would like to see?
• F. Latour made a motion to create an ad hoc committee to revise the Policy on Online Learning to consider what we have learned in the last twelve months. The Committee would have representation from other Senate committees that might find that they have something to say about one part of the online learning situation: Information Technology, Online Learning Committee, the Academic Standards Committee, the Graduate Studies Committee, the Curriculum Committee, SUOAF and AAUP representation from the Center for Teaching and Innovation (the former IDTRC and CTFD), adjunct faculty, UPBC and representation from AAUP and the four schools. The idea is that we would have representation from all interested parties. The motion was seconded by Senator Mendez-Mendez, who requested to speak and indicated it was a sound proposal and that we are moving to a new normal.
• President Toro asked that the role of the committee and role of the administration be defined. F. Latour clarified that the goal of the ad hoc committee is to formulate changes to the Senate’s Online Policy that would eventually be sent to the University President for approval.
• Senator Blitz asked about the scope and limits on online courses: What are the best case and worst-case scenarios and how can the worst-case scenarios be avoided at the outset?
• F. Latour again presented the motion above. A poll was created, and the motion approved 48:1.

d. Governor Lamont's proposal on auto-admission to CSUs

• F. Latour reviewed the Governor’s proposed legislative initiatives aimed at increasing postsecondary enrollment across Connecticut. He focused on the initiative aimed at creating an auto-admission program at the four CSUs. The challenge he identified is what, exactly, does an auto-admission program at the four CSUs mean? Does this mean that all students will be admitted? Then, where it refers to “academically-prepared students”, the question is: who determines the level of preparedness?
• President Toro provided additional information she learned that day. The language included in the proposed legislation is more limited than what she was anticipating. The universities will not have that much room to define admission criteria. And the whole program will be managed centrally by the System Office. That may mean, and it is not clear, students would be applying directly to the System Office instead of the campuses.
• Senator Mendez-Mendez suggested this be tabled and that the Governor’s Office be asked to provide additional information.
• F. Latour supported asking the Governor’s office for more information and asked the Academic Standards Committee to monitor the situation and be prepared to act if necessary.
• Motion: To seek more information from the Governor’s office and to ask the Academic Standards Committee to monitor the situation. The motion was approved unanimously (49:0).
• The Chair of Academic Standards, in attendance at the meeting, was asked to take this to the committee and monitor the situation.

6. Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m.