Faculty Senate

a. Academic Standards Committee (E. Leonidas)

• E. Leonidas reviewed the highlights of the report circulated with the agenda. Three proposals were passed by the Academic Standards Committee:
• First Proposal: to change the minimum grade required to count in the professional program for ENG 402, 406, 407, and 408 from C- to C.
• Second Proposal: to add an interview-audition to the requirements for admission to the Theatre BFA
• Third Proposal: to increase the English Language Proficiency Requirement for acceptance of international students to the University for undergraduate students:
• Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) minimum IBT score of 65 (PBT 500)
• International English Language Testing System (IELTS) minimum score of 6.5
• Duolingo English Test (DET) minimum score of 95
• For those already in Connecticut, language proficiency can also be assessed through the CCSU Intensive English Language Program (IELP)
• MOTION: To approve the three proposals.
• K. Kostelis questioned the 6.5 score on the IELTS test, noting it is higher than the requirement of at least one of our sister institutions. M. Ciscel noted that the 6.5 is intended to discourage people from taking that particular test and noted that its scoring system is not as fine-grained or and it is not as appropriate as the other two tests in measuring English for academic purposes. E. Leonidas added that UConn’s IELTS score is 6.5.
• Motion approved.

b. Bachelor of General Studies (B. Merenstein)

• B. Merenstein highlighted a few of the points made in the informational report circulated with the agenda, noting the report was in response to the Senate’s request they be kept infomed about the BGS. She noted that because of the high response rate to the offering of the BGS, Erin Beecher has been assigned to assist her.
• Sen. Bray asked when this program could be part of the what/if analysis in the degree evaluation system. B. Merenstein indicated that the BGS is highly individualized and therefore it will not be possible to do the what/if analysis. She likened it to the Special Studies major, which is similar in some ways. The main reason is that this degree has a theme and not a specialization, and it is very broad on purpose.
• Sen. Bishop asked whether B. Merenstein has a sense of how many students will be completing the BGS in the future. B. Merenstein responded by saying that demand has been much higher than anticipated and that because of that, she does not have a sense of how many students will complete the BGS.
• Sen. Best spoke highly about the BGS program, noting he has worked with several students in the program.
• B. Merenstein said it has been very powerful to work with this very grateful population. In some cases, students have been out of school for 10 or 20 years and they have been “floored” that they could return and get a degree. She noted also that students often cry tears of joy at the prospect of completing a degree.
• Sen. R. Smith asked whether these students are getting advisors in departments in which they are taking a certain number of courses, or whether they are only working with B. Merenstein and E. Beecher. B. Merenstein said a huge number of the students are seeking out the BGS because their advisors have recommended it because they are not going to be able to complete the degree in that discipline, or complete the degree when they want to. Some students are meeting with department-based advisors, but that number is much lower than originally anticipated, largely because the students Beth and Erin are working with are often students who have taken a large number of credits and want to use credits already earned to complete a degree.
• Sen. Smith asked whether they are getting any students who have completed a major and not a minor and are coming to ask about the BGS. B. Merenstein responded saying that they are definitely not encouraging students to drop a minor and change to the BGS; instead, they are often encouraging students to pursue a minor in special studies.

c. Ad Hoc Committee on Emeritus Status (R. Smith)

• R. Smith reviewed the recommendations of the committee that were circulated with the agenda. She indicated that departments were currently handling emeritus status recommendations in a variety of ways and that the committee feels there should be some uniformity.
• MOTION: To adopt these recommendations as a policy.
• Discussion: Sen. Best spoke in favor of bestowing emeritus status on retiring faculty and engaging them in new capacities after retirement. He cited fundraising/ development efforts as an example of how emeriti could be engaged post-retirement.
• Sen. Andreoletti asked whether these recommendations, if adopted as a policy, are specific enough to address the problem. She asked, ‘Does the document give enough guidance for departments to be clear on the process?’ She suggested having something specific, such as the P&T guidelines.
• Sen. Smith responded saying the committee needed to stay within the boundaries of the collective bargaining agreements. The committee also wanted to leave room for departments to have additional procedures, criteria, subcommittees, etc. There are other universities which have very specific criteria, but they did not want to be that proscriptive.
• After several comments about parts of the document, the Parliamentarian suggested a possible course of action would be to postpone this until the last Senate meeting of the semester in order to see if the SEBAC agreements and collective bargaining agreements are approved.
• Sen. Best moved postponement to the next meeting. Sen. R. Smith seconded the motion.
• Sen. Halkin asked about the “up to one year post-retirement or posthumously” reference, since this is not in the contract. She asked ‘What is the rationale for including posthumously?’ Sen. Smith indicated that the posthumously notation was to provide for someone whose children are still eligible for the tuition waiver.
• Sen. Halkin also asked about the 7-year requirement. Sen. Smith said that many schools require a certain number of years on the faculty in order to be considered for emeritus status.
• Interim Dean Mulrooney recommended that the recommendations be sent to Human Resources for their review and comment because some things happen immediately upon retirement, and some of those things cannot easily be undone. Sen. Smith agreed, citing access to email as one of those things.
• Sen. Halkin spoke about the letters of recommendation not going up the chain of command. She thought they did. Sen. Smith indicated that under the current process, the dean and provost give informal feedback to the President. In the new contract, the dean and provost are listed as part of the process.
• Sen. Best spoke in favor of Interim Dean Mulrooney’s recommendation.
• Sen. Andreoletti questioned whether departments had to write a letter in favor or against emeritus status, stating that in her department, simply saying yes or no was sufficient.
• Sen. Al-Masoud asked whether anything done for faculty retiring right now needed to be changed. Sen. Smith said that they only thing in effect right now is the current contract, and all that needs to be done is for a recommendation to be made to the president. Interim Provost Kostelis indicated that since she has been in her present role, the recommendation has gone up through the chain of command so that everyone is in the know. F. Latour summarized that it would be good to copy everyone (dean, interim provost, and president) on emeriti recommendations.
• MOTION: to postpone this matter until the next meeting. Motion passed.

5. Unfinished Business

a. Constitution and Bylaws Committee (J. Duquette)

• Current status and context for the items
• Possible amendment to the final proposal: change "academic advising" to "academic advising within an academic program"
F. Latour summarized the proposal to make changes to the Constitution of the Faculty Senate. Those changes included adding a number of things to the section where the Senate has decision-making authority. One of those things was academic advising. There were two groups that expressed concern: SUOAF (related to the fact that there are people whose job is academic advising, and they have a supervisor); the other concerns came from Management (the role of advising in recruitment and retention efforts.)
• A compromise proposal was circulated with the agenda. It would change “academic advising” to “academic advising within an academic program.”
• F. Latour proposed an amendment to the final proposal: change "academic advising" to "academic advising within an academic program"
• Interim Dean Mulrooney spoke against the proposed amendment.
• Sen. Duquette questioned how the proposed amendment is a compromise. F. Latour compared advising a new arrival or transfer student with advising an upper-division major.
• Sen. Duquette asked about the written opinion from the SUOAF attorney. Sen. Bigelow indicated that no written opinion would be forthcoming.
• President Toro asked about the ultimate goal of this proposal, asking ‘Are we here to debate the power of the Senate or what is best for our students?’
• Sen. Duquette indicated that is a false dichotomy. It is a power issue; the Senate needs to protect the authority of the faculty and that protects our students and the quality of their education.
• Dean Wolff acknowledged the comments of Sen. Duquette and said that he finds the potential clash between the two bargaining units unfortunate. One is saying “this is highly problematic”. In terms of advising, Sen. Bigelow is correct: this could provide conflict where there should not be conflict. Overall, he concluded, having two bargaining units clashing does not seem like a good situation.
• Sen. Crundwell reiterated that what is done by the Senate can be undone by the Senate. Alternatively, if this passes, the President could veto this. He stated sees no issue with the Bylaws Committee’s recommendation.
• Interim Mulrooney said that creating an adversarial scenario between the Senate and the President is not desirable. He said it takes everyone to serve our students, including people who are not part of the senate, such as ex officio members, like himself.
• Sen. Duquette said that a policy-making process that includes an opportunity for a veto is not irregular. In fact, it is typical of a policy-making process. As it is being framed by SUOAF, gives him pause.
• Sen. Bishop stated she sees both sides of the argument and believes it is a communication issue. The administrative fears the Senate will move slowly and impact academic advisors, and the Senate feels that they have no voice in academic advising. What is happening seems to her to be a struggle for communication. She asked, ‘What is it that we want to weigh in on? What would the faculty want decision-making powers on that we do not have now?’
• MOTION: to amend the proposal by changing it to “academic advising within an academic program”
• Interim Dean Jarrett said it is somewhat disturbing that no one is answering the question of what is it that Senators want to weigh in on? Answering that question would really help the members of the Senate understand why the body wants to move to a decision-making authority from an advisory capacity.
• Sen. Duquette responded saying he does not want to limit the Senate by giving specific examples.
• J. Jarrett asked again for examples. Sen. Duquette said he has no examples.
• President Toro said she is trying to understand the arguments on the other side of the issue. The argument that Senate wants broad authority over advising is different from curriculum matters, we are talking about AAUP only. The veto process is not immediate. She said that when we are dealing with matters like the enrollment issue we are facing, advising is such an important endeavor. She asked, ‘How will this help the university?’
• Sen. Crundwell pointed out that when President Toro brought up the contract she was right – we do have authority over curriculum. We also have authority over admission policy and student behavior. What’s the big deal? We are required by our contract to do advising. He spoke to members of the teaching faculty specifically and asked them to consider if they wanted the ability to give their voice to the Senate.
• Sen. Duquette agreed with President Toro’s points that there is a timelag between something approved by the Senate and vetoed by the President.
• K. Martin stated she does not believe that advisory capacity is a weak position to be in. She cited the previous Provost’s action that created CASE over a weekend some number of years ago and said the Senate did nothing.
• MOTION: To change “academic advising" to "academic advising within an academic program".
• MOTION: To postpone until the next meeting so this vote can be made anonymously. Motion passed.

b. Committee on Committees (G. Crundwell)
• Bylaws of the Committee on Academic Advising
• Possible amendment: change "five representatives elected from within the Division of Undergraduate Advising" to "two representatives elected from within the Division of Undergraduate Advising and three administrative faculty at large"
• Possible amendment: add the Director of Undergraduate Advising as a non-voting member
• The Bylaws of the Committee on Academic Advising circulated with the agenda were revisited.
• F. Latour indicated that the Senate had reached a point where we were mostly in agreement, except a couple of possible amendments were still up for discussion, including:
  • changing "five representatives elected from within the Division of Undergraduate Advising" to "two representatives elected from within the Division of Undergraduate Advising and three administrative faculty at-large" because, for example, academic deans have a vested interest in the topic
  • add the Director of Undergraduate Advising as a non-voting member
• Sen. Crundwell asked why deans would be on the committee since they are members of management and noted that everyone currently on the committee advises students and that it would not make sense for people who do not advise students to be on the committee.
• F. Latour indicated that assistant and associated deans are in SUOAF. The other issue is that there are people who are not professional advisors but have generally, something to do with advising. There could be other SUPAF members who are interested in running for election on the committee.
• G. Crundwell confirmed that he was speaking against the possible amendment to add at-large SUOAF members to the committee.
• Sen. Bigelow noted that SUOAF includes members who have been academic advisors in the past, either at CCSU or another institution.
• G. Crundwell stated that even so, having three at-large members does not assure that any of them will have advising experience.
• G. Crundwell asked if the Director of Undergraduate Advising was added to the committee, does that alleviate the concern that the members from Advising might be hesitant to vote a certain way on matters that come before the committee because the Director is present? Or if the number of advisors on the committee is reduced from five to two?
• In the chat, someone recommended that all five SUOAF members should be at-large.
• A question was asked in the chat: who is asking about the language change? B. Merenstein asked the same question. She is on the committee and is having trouble remembering whether the committee discussed this. She asked whether or not this should be discussed within the Senate Committee on Academic Advising? F. Latour indicated this has been discussed with the Academic Advising Committee several times and they would prefer that the Senate make up its mind.
• The Parliamentarian said that in order for the Senate to consider something, it has to come to the Senate either by a committee of the Senate or a member of the Senate. From the discussion, he said it is not clear if this came from either one of these entities.
• Sen. Best asked for a point of clarification: is person that asked for this a member of the Senate? F. Latour recalled that it was discussed at a Senate Steering Committee meeting. F. Latour made clear that the two possible amendments were brought to the Steering Committee; the Steering Committee however is not endorsing either of them as good ideas.
• Sen. Crundwell asked ‘if no one moves or seconds the amendments, can they be ignored’? F. Latour agreed and asked everyone whether anyone wanted to move those possible amendments.
• Sen. Sikorski moved adding the Director of Undergraduate Advising to the Committee. The motion was seconded by Sen. Villanti.
• MOTION: To add the Director of Undergraduate Advising to the Senate Committee on Academic Advising as a non-voting member.
• Sen. Best asked for the rationale regarding why the Director of Undergraduate Advising is being proposed as a non-voting member. Sen. Crundwell gave the analogy of senior administrators who report directly to the president being ex officio on UPBC to give information to members of the UPBC that could be helpful in conducting the committee’s business. Extrapolating on that, he said the Director could serve in a similar capacity: giving advice to members of the committee as they formulate policy.
• Motion passed.
• MOTION: Change “five representatives elected from within the Division of Undergraduate Advising" to "two representatives elected from within the Division of Undergraduate Advising and three administrative faculty at-large."
• There was a motion supporting this from Sen. Villanti. It was seconded by Sen. Best.
• Sen. Crundwell again pointed out that there is no guarantee that the three at-large SUOAF members would have advising experience.
• Sen. Merenstein said she would want to have the Committee on Academic Advising be allowed the opportunity to weigh in on who they would like to be on the committee. She said it seemed strange to be having this discussion without input from the committee. F. Latour asked if she was asking for a postponement. She confirmed that and it was seconded.
• Sen. Crundwell asked if Sen. Merenstein was asking for a referral or a postponement. F. Latour confirmed with Sen. Merenstein that she was asking for a referral to the committee.
• M. Kulesza joined the meeting. F. Latour provided her a recap of the discussions. M. Kulesza, Chair of the Senate Committee on Academic Advising, noted that the committee did talk about adding people to the committee, but since it is already a large committee, the membership did not want to expand the committee so much that it was hard to manage. She stated she is open to the recommendations of the Senate and the Committee on Committees, but she hoped that the committee would not get so large that they could not get their business done in a timely manner.
• MOTION: To refer this to the Committee on Academic Advising. Motion passed.

6. New Business

a. Posthumous Degree for Kwashawna English

• Interim Provost Kostelis recommended that the Senate approve the award of a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting posthumously. M. McCarthy spoke highly of the student’s academic accomplishments and career goals.
• MOTION: To award of a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting posthumously to Ms. Kwashawna English. Motion passed.

7. Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned at 5:26pm.