Faculty Senate

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

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Al-Masoud, N.; Atkinson, S.; Austad, C.; Basim, S.; Benoit, D.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Chakraborty, S.; Chen, S.; Donohue, 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.; Givens, 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, V.; Matzke, B.; Mendez-Mendez, S.; Misbach, K.; Moreno-Fuentes, G.; Nicholson, B.; Nicoletti, J.; Orange, M.; Pancsofar, E.; Paolino, J.; Rein, T.; Roark, E.; Ruhs, T.; Salama, T.; Salgado, E.; 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.; 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: Casamento, C.; Fallon, M.; Goode, G.; Kirby, Y.; Kuo, B.; Magnan, C.; Miller, S.; Palmer, J.; Peckham, K.; Tucker, P.

1. Minutes

• Not available at this point

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP (L. Williams)

• The latest edition of Table Talk has been sent out. There were some disturbing events at the last negotiations session with the Board of Regents. Everyone was encouraged to read about them in Table Talk.
• On March 25 at 10 a.m. there will be a Board of Regents meeting. AAUP plans to have speakers at that meeting. If you are interested in speaking, please contact L. Williams or Liz Newberg, AAUP’s communications director. The remarks are intended to cover important topics related to AAUP contract proposals, including work-life balance, diversity and inclusion, and a living wage for part-time faculty. Many AAUP members have been testifying recently in the legislature (e.g., Higher Education Committee, Labor Committee, Appropriations Committee) and will be doing more in the upcoming weeks. It is important to educate members of the legislature on how and why the universities are different from the community colleges and from UConn and why we need legislative support, and it helps when faculty participate in these discussions. There are legislators that support us.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (J. Gamache)

• No announcements.

c. SGA (B. Kuo)

• Representatives of the AAUP have come to speak at SGA on current events and how students can become involved.
• Elections for new senators have been held and they were sworn in at the last meeting.
• The SGA base budget allocation process for clubs is in progress now.
• SGA is considering reinstatement of the Social Affairs committee.

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

• The FAC is meeting on Friday at 1 p.m. and anyone who wants to listen or attend as a guest should contact D. Blitz for the link or go to the BOR website where it is in the agenda for Friday’s meeting. It will be held on WebEx.
• There will be hearings on March 9th before the Higher Education Committee. There are over a dozen bills being considered and they are asking for testimony on them.
• Of particular interest to us is HR5545, An Act Concerning the Budget of CSCU, which requires an explicit line item for the System Office. Right now, if you look at the Governor’s budget and the budget that the legislature approves, other than monies going to the community college, Charter Oak, the CSUs and various small and diverse miscellaneous items, the only thing that seems to be going to the Central Office is $408K for the Board of Regents. But of course, the $69M which goes to the System Office and is controlled by it is buried in the budget allocations and block grants to the community colleges and the State universities. HR 5545 would require them to make that explicit. This is a significant item, and it would be a big help if it were approved.
• HR6403, an Act to Require Legislative Approval for the Merger or Closing of Institutions within CSCU, is also very important. At present, that can be done according to §185 of the State Statutes by a 2/3 vote of the Board and informing the relevant standing committees of the Legislature. Since the Board is always unanimous in approving what the System Office wants, there is clearly no check and balance. And, merely informing the committees of the Legislature also is not a check and balance, so this provision would require a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature.
• And there is a final bill, An Act to Establish Voting Rights of Faculty Members of the Board of Regents for Higher Education. That would normalize the situation of the Chair and Vice Chair of the FAC who are ex-officio but non-voting members of the Board of Regents. While the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Student Advisory Committee are voting members of the Board of Regents. We argue that we cannot fulfill our obligation to assist the Board if we cannot move amendments, give regular reports, and vote on resolutions.
D. Blitz will be testifying on all the above. The deadline to submit testimony was 3 p.m. today, but it is worthwhile for faculty to tune into the hearings, which will be broadcast live on YouTube.
• Further to what L. Williams said about testimony last week, some of the testimony is truly outstanding. It is well-worth listing to what your colleagues have to say.

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• Please be reminded that we will be receiving reports from all the committees that report to the Senate in the next few weeks. That is generally done via a written report, sent toward the end of the semester. There will be three committee reports on the next Senate agenda: the BOR Teaching Award Committee, the BOR Research Award Committee, and the Sabbatic Leave Committee. The way it normally works, the reports are posting on the agenda and if anyone has any questions, they should speak to F. Latour in advance of the meeting so that he can invite the chair(s) of the committee(s) to attend the meeting.
• The Ad Hoc Committee on the future of Online Learning at CCSU has started to meet. The first meeting was last Friday, and it was a brainstorming session about the future of online education. If there is anything you would like the committee to tackle, please contact F. Latour.
• We are expecting some reports from committees this semester, that will also include committees that do not usually report, such as FYE.

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)

• Academic Standards has been asked to begin following the proposal from Governor Lamont to create an auto-admit policy or guaranteed admission policy at the CSCU. The report shows this has been turned into a bill and has been referred to committee. It is a long bill and only a couple sections are relevant to us. It essentially directs the BOR to develop an auto-admit policy for the CSCUs.
• Guidelines for the Creation and Administration of Undergraduate Certificates – Over the winter, M. Fallon convened a faculty workgroup to review what is being done at other institutions. The committee had representation from across the university. The idea is to create a “how to” for faculty to put these programs together and administer them. The report includes two sets of Guidelines (a longer and shorter version of the same guidelines for the catalog). Questions or changes would be made in the longer document and carry forward to the shorter document. The goal is to establish guidelines so that faculty and administrators could begin creating and moving new programs forward. We currently have two such programs: the Detective Certificate and a new Racial Justice Certificate. The Guidelines were reviewed in detail. The guidelines do not limit double-counting between the certificate and an undergraduate degree program. Assessment definitions are included in the guidelines, including expected outcomes. Transfer and residency requirements are also included, as are admissions and graduation policies.
• Questions:
  • Sen. Foster asked whether undergraduate students at CCSU would have to pay any additional fees for the certificates, beyond the per-credit fee for the coursework. To clarify his question, Sen Foster asked how this differs from a Minor, beyond it being smaller. E. Leonidas said he was not aware of any additional fees and the certificate was meant to be a stand-alone credential, attractive to a student who is outside the University.
  • Sen. Blitz asked whether there is any information available on the demand for these programs. E. Leonidas indicated that there is demand for the existing programs and that there is a growing interest in industry-specific certificate programs.
  • Sen. Al-Masoud asked when certificate programs could be scheduled. Must they be delivered in the Fa//Spring exclusively or could it be offered intensively over the summer. E. Leonidas indicated instruction could take place over the summer.
  • Sen. R. Smith asked whether a certificate program could be interdisciplinary, and Dean Wolff confirmed that it can be interdisciplinary. E. Leonidas emphasized that this is probably going to apply to most of the certificate programs going forward.
  • Someone asked whether this policy applies only to undergraduate programs. E. Leonidas said separate policies exist for Official Certificate Programs, which are at the graduate level.
  • MOTION: to accept the report of the Academic Standards Committee. Motion approved unanimously, 53:0.

4. Unfinished Business

a. Proposal for policy on Interdisciplinary Program Directors

• Proposal for Policy on Interdisciplinary Program (IDP) Directors – Right now there is no policy on this, though there should be since this is covered in the AAUP contract and refers to university policy. The proposal is to adopt a policy on Interdisciplinary Program Director Selection, based largely on the existing policy on the selection of department chairs. F. Latour reviewed the proposal in detail. Two challenges arise: how easily can these guidelines be implemented for existing interdisciplinary programs and who is eligible to vote in the selection process. Policy language addressing these challenges is included in the proposed policy.
• MOTION: to approve the proposed Policy on Interdisciplinary Program Directors.
• Discussion/Questions/Comments/Concerns:
  • Sen. Bishop asked what would happen if someone who has been elected as an IDP director leaves the university and whether there should be something about this in the policy. F. Latour indicated that there are other existing processes in place to replace someone when a vacancy occurs.
  • Sen. Zadi asked whether this policy applied only to a Business IDP. F. Latour clarified that it would apply to all IDP programs. Sen. Zadi clarified the question: if an IDP were to exist within one school, would only the Business faculty vote. F. Latour said yes, if a program were in a single school, that school’s faculty would vote however, it would not be so clear-cut if the IDP crossed schools.
  • Sen. Austad asked whether all current IPD directors know of this policy. F. Latour indicated this is difficult to answer because there is no single list of current IDP.s
  • Sen. Mendez-Mendez indicated that for the sake of consistency, he suggests that the policy should not, for the good of students and the institution, segregate programs without having a consistent policy. He would like to see the creation of an over-arching set of standards for an IDP and not one only for the School of Business. F. Latour indicated there is a body within the Curriculum Committee that oversees IDPs, but he would need to speak with the Chair of that committee to get more information.
  • Sen. Blitz asked if this policy would only apply to IDPs with a director, and not those with a coordinator. F. Latour asked what is the difference? Sen. Blitz indicated that a director is named in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and that a coordinator is not. Some departments have coordinators for minors, concentrations, etc. The Peace Studies Program, as another example, has co-coordinators. F. Latour referred to the contract language, which explained that size and complexity of an IDP plays a role in determining whether the program has a director or a coordinator. Sen. Blitz indicated there are probably six or so existing IDPs with a coordinator. He spoke in favor of approving the current proposal, which codifies what to do to select directors for IDP programs that have a director.
  • Dean Wolff commented on his experience as dean. There are several dozen programs that are interdisciplinary, and, in some cases, we are using interdisciplinary when we probably mean inter-departmental. There has not been consistency over time in determining which programs should have coordinators and which should have directors, and he agreed there is no single list of all the programs.
  • Sen. Austad suggested that a list be developed.
  • Sen. Mendez-Mendez proposed the creation of an ad hoc committee to develop a list of the current interdisciplinary programs, and that the list include which have directors and which have coordinators. F. Latour confirmed Sen. Mendez-Mendez was suggesting that this matter be referred to the Senate Steering Committee (SSC) which would then confer with the Curriculum Committee to obtain a list of all IDPs to ensure that they are all informed of this policy and have the change to provide their feedback. Sen. Mendez-Mendez agreed.
  • MOTION: to refer this to the Senate Steering Committee (SSC) which would then confer with the Curriculum Committee to obtain a list of all IDPs to ensure that they are all informed of this policy and have the change to provide their feedback.
  • Discussion of the motion:
    • the difference between interdisciplinary and inter-departmental should be defined;
    • the scope of discussion grew beyond the main agenda item, and Sen. Blitz brought the discussion back to the matter at hand;
    • Sen. Austad called the question.
  • Motion to call the question. Motion passed 43:3.
• MOTION: to refer this to the Senate Steering Committee. Motion passed 47:3.

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

• F. Latour reviewed the document included as part of the agenda and asked anyone with questions for the ad hoc committee to refer the questions to him.

5. New Business

a. Posthumous Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering for Mr. Brandon Darrell Hensel

• Posthumous degree conferral. President Latour presented the School of Engineering, Science and Technology’s proposal, sponsored by the Department of Engineering, to award Brandon Darrell Hensel the Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering degree posthumously. President Latour paid tribute to the deceased and asked for a moment of silence in his honor.
• Sen. Al-Masoud also paid tribute to Brandon and extended his and the department’s condolences to Brandon’s friends and family and asked his fellow senators to approve the motion to award the degree, which he hopes will bring some comfort to the family.
• MOTION: to award Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering degree posthumously to Brandon Darrell Hensel. Motion passed unanimously 51:0.

b. DEC Exception for Spring 2021

• The proposal to add one member to the Social Work DEC was moved by F. Latour.
• MOTION: to add one member to the Social Work DEC. Motion passed 54:0.

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

• In the Fall, we discussed extending the Pass/Fail, Withdrawal and Incomplete policies put place in the Spring 2020 semester in response to COVID to the Fall 2020 semester. The Senate extended the temporary Pass/Fail and temporary Withdrawal policies and did not extend the temporary Incomplete policy. Earlier this semester, a professor asked that we begin discussion of the Pass/Fail policy again for the Spring 2021 semester. We do not have to take a vote on this today, although we can if there is a desire to. The question is what do we want to do with these policies for the Spring 2021 semester.
• F. Latour did reach out to the registrar’s office and OIRA on this matter. Y. Kirby indicated it is increasingly difficult to explain to our accrediting body why we continue to extend these policies because there has been no significant disruptions or unexpected issues this semester, like there was in Spring 2020 and Fall 2020. We were better prepared this semester and had more than a single semester of practice.
• P. Tucker indicated that he has been keeping abreast of this issue, both with our sister schools and action on a national scale. At the national level there has been very little discussion about expansion of Pass/Fail policy extensions this semester. Western has extended their Pass/Fail policy into the Spring, Eastern is where we are, and Southern is extending their Withdrawal deadline but not their Pass/Fail policy into the Spring semester.
• Fred said there is also the question of how many students take advantage of these extended policies. In Fall 2020, there were 901 undergraduate students who took advantage of the extended Pass/Fail policy with a total of 1,675 classes between them. At the graduate level there were 17 students and 24 classes total. Options today include approving the extension to the Spring, postponing this to the next meeting so that people could take this back to their departments, or someone could make the motion that we are not extending this to the Spring, and that this was an experiment that we did for two semesters, based on extenuating circumstances.
• Sen. Mendez-Mendez stated that what we have done in the past was the correct action, but we are moving to a new normal and should not extend the policy.
• Sen. Bray moved that this be deferred to the next Senate meeting.
• MOTION: to postpone this to the next Senate meeting. Motion approved 47:3.

6. Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.