Faculty Senate

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

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Adair, S.; Al-Masoud, N.; Atkinson, S.; Austad, C.; Barr, B.; Basim, S.; Benoit, D.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Chakraborty, S.; Chen, S.; Donahue, P.; Dumpson, N.; Duquette, J.; Elfant, A.; Foster, P.; French, J.; Gamache, J.; Garceau, T.; Garcia-Bowen, M.; Ghiloni-Wage, B.; Ghodsi, R.; Gichiru, W.; Given, E.; Gu, S.; Hernandez, J.; Holt, J.; Hou, X.; Hughes, H.; Jarmoszko, T.; Jenkins, A.; Jones S.; Karas, R.; Knox, C.; Langevin, K.; Lewis, M.; Liu, Y.; Mahony, M.A.; Martin, V.; Matzke, B.; Mendez-Mendez, S.; Misbach, K.; Nicholson, B.; Orange, M.; Pancsofar, E.; Paolino, J.; 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.; Wang, W.; Whittemore, L.; Williams, L.; Zadi, S.

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

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Goode, G.; Jackson, M.; Kirby, Y.; Kuo, B.; Lee, B.; Palmer, J.; Resetarits, P.; Tucker, P.; Tully, J.

1. Minutes

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP (L. Williams)

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (J. Gamache)

c. SGA (B. Kuo)

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

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

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. Sabbatical Leave Committee (P. Resetarits & B. Flinn)

  • Prof. Paul Resetarits reviewed a slide presentation that showed:
    • the membership of the 9-member committee, noting members’ terms and the chair and co-chair of the committee;
    • the mission of the Sabbatical leave committee;
    • the AAUP contract language pertaining to Sabbatic Leave;
    • the process used by the committee’s work to select 24 awardees on our campus;
    • the criteria used by the committee to rank the proposals received;
    • suggestions for getting feedback on a proposal before submitting it to the committee;
    • statistics about application pool and awards made;
    • a list of the names of the recipients.
  • Sen. Chakraborty asked whether unsuccessful candidates would receive feedback. Paul noted it was a confidential process, but he would be willing to speak with unsuccessful candidates and share as much information as could be shared.
  • Sen. Ghodsi made some suggestions about additional information that should be considered. He cited a colleague within his department who has been rejected three times but has not received any feedback concerning why his prior proposals were not approved. He spoke to highlight what he feels it a problem with the process: that some people get multiple sabbaticals during the same period that others get denied repeatedly.
  • Sen. Basim noted he had been denied multiple times, making him wonder how many people on the committee read his proposals. He stated he believes the process has no integrity. He called for the abolishment of the committee. F. Latour indicated he is not in favor of abolishing the committee. P. Resetarits explained that each committee member reads and scores every proposal, the lowest and highest scores are eliminated, the remaining scores are aggregated and those receiving the highest scores are recommended.
  • Sen. Mahony reviewed the competitive nature of the process and applauded the current committee for asking that CCSU be allocated more sabbatical leaves. She stated she firmly believes it is the competitive nature of the process that leads to good proposals not being awarded. She also thanked current committee members and reiterated that resource allocations continue to plague us and that she hopes that the contract negotiation team is successful in making this case at the negotiations table.
  • Sen. Blitz agreed with P. Resetarits that it is difficult for committees to give qualitative and quantitative feedback, however, it may be possible to revise the pdf form that was circulated prior to this round of proposals. The previous Word document seemed to work better. There should be a note that lets people know that they can submit more than what will fit in the space provided on the pdf. He suggested the University should also send to the BOR the abstracts of our members’ winning proposals so that the BOR can get a better understanding of the quality and purpose of the sabbaticals.
  • Sen. Al-Masoud thanked the Sabbatical Leave committee for their work. He indicated he has not served on this committee yet, but he wanted to state that he does have faith in the committee and in the process. He asked whether it might be possible for the committee to give anonymous feedback to the unsuccessful applicants. For example, indicate which part(s) of the proposal could be improved.
  • Senate President Emeritus Jackson spoke in support of the veracity of the current process. He agreed that it is difficult to provide individual feedback because of the individual nature of the review process. He spoke specifically to how high and low scores are dropped out, reducing each proposal’s score to an aggregate of seven scores, which are then ranked to identify what proposals can be awarded. He also noted that no proposals were deemed non-meritorious; there were simply not enough slots to award every proposal. He also noted that the committee’s membership changes significantly year to year, which adds to the complexity of giving pointers about how proposals could be improved.
  • Sen. Mendez-Mendez noted he has had the benefit of two sabbaticals and that this may be getting blown out of proportion. While he understands that some people may feel otherwise, there is a clear process being followed that includes a good rubric.
  • Sen. Chakraborty restated his prior comments stating it is not a question of credibility, but could the committee find a way to help people improve their proposals in the future? People have a right to know. P. Resetarits responded, echoing many of the points just made by fellow Sabbatic Leave committee member Jackson.
  • Sen. Ghodsi restated his concerns. He stressed the process could be improved by including information about how many prior sabbaticals an applicant has had, how many years they have been at Central, and how many years have passed since the last successful sabbatical proposal. He asked for fair access to be given to everyone.
  • MOTION: to call the question. Motion passed 42:2.
  • MOTION: to accept the Sabbatic Leave Committee report. Motion passed 40:2.

b. BOR Research Award Committee (I. Gotchev)*

  • Hearing no objection, F. Latour accepted the report on behalf of the Senate.

c. BOR Teaching Award Committee (M. Cistulli et al.)*

  • Hearing no objection, F. Latour accepted the report on behalf of the Senate.

d. Curriculum Committee (B. Lee for T. Burkholder)

  • The report was reviewed by B. Lee, with particular attention paid to courses that have not been scheduled and are subject to being cancelled and removed from the next catalog. If someone wishes to pull a course from the list, they should write to Tom Burkholder expressing such.
  • MOTION: to approve the Curriculum Committee report. Motion passed unanimously.

4. Unfinished Business

a. Possible extension of Temporary Changes to Academic Policies to Spring 2021

  • President Latour noted that this is essentially the Pass/Fail policy for Fall 2020. He proposed that a possible motion is that this policy would be extended to Spring 2021. There are three things that could be done: (1) approve an extension to Spring 2021 with some amendments; (2) postpone to next meeting to allow for departmental discussions; (3) postpone indefinitely. A possible fourth action could be to refer this to a committee, but that is unlikely.
  • Sen. Adair spoke to convey there are many students doing well, but also many who are struggling. He is in favor of extending the proposal. Sen. Bray spoke in favor of reverting to the original policy to encourage students to have conversation with their faculty and advisors. Sen. Foster spoke in favor of extending the policy. Sen. Smith agreed with colleague Bray because she had many students make poor Pass/Fail decisions. Sen. Gamache agreed with Sens. Bray and Smith. Sen. Chakraborty spoke against extending the policy based on personal experiences with students who made poor Pass/Fail decisions. Sen. Langevin spoke against extending the policy.
  • MOTION: to approve the Fall 2020 Pass/Fail policy to Spring 2021. Motion failed 16:25.

5. New Business

a. Student Opinion Surveys and other related matters for Fall 2020 and Spring 2021

  • Due to the hour, Fred suggested senators take the draft shared with the agenda back to their departments and that this be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
  • Sen. Hughues commented that deferring a vote today may have impact on people going up for P&T because applications are due at the end of this month and the next Senate meeting is April 5. At the same time, a quorum call was made. A quorum was confirmed. F. Latour called for a vote on the proposal as stated.
  • MOTION: to approve the policy on Student Opinion Surveys for Fall 2020/Spring 2021. Motion approved 31:1.

b. Resolution of Solidarity with AAPI community

  • MOTION: to approved Senate Resolution of Solidarity with AAPI Community. Motion passed unanimously.

6. Adjournment

6. Adjournment