Faculty Senate

Minutes - February 14, 2022 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Acharya, K.; Al-Masoud, N.; Amaya, L.; Andreoletti, C.; Atkinson, S.; Barr, B.; Bartone, M.; Best, F.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Cameron, J.; Crundwell, G.; Donahue, P.; Drew, S.; Duquette, M.; Dumpson, N.; Elfant, A.; Emeagwali, G.; Fallon, M.; Farrish, K.; Flinn, B.; Foster, P.; Gamache, J.; Garbovskiy, Y.; Garcia-Bowen, M.; Gardner, P.; Gichiru, W.; Givens, E.; Gu, S.; Halkin, S.; Hedlund, J.; Hernandez, J.; Huang, Y.; Hughes, H.; Jackson, M.; Jarmoszko, T.; Kapper, M.; Karas, R.; Kean, K.; Kreeger, J.; Kumar, R.; Langevin, K.; Larsen, K.; Lewis, M.; Liu, R.; Martin, A.; Matthews, S.; Matzke, B.; McCarthy, M.; Morano, P.; Ofray, J.; Orange, M.; Phillips, E.; Robinson, G.; Rode, D.; Salama, T.; Savatorova, V.; Schenck, S.; Scott, T.; Sikorski, J.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Spear, E.; Sugg, K.; Sylvester, C.; Tellier, A.; Vargas, C.; Villanti, S.; Washko, L.; Whittemore, L.; Zabihimayvan, M.; Zadi, S.; Zhao, S.

Ex-Officio:Burkholder, T.; Farhat, J.; Jackson, M.; Jarrett, J.; Kostelis, K.; Mulrooney, J.; Robinson, C.; Toro, Z.; Wolff, R.

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Bucher, L.; Cintorino, S.; Claffey, G.; Elissaint, S.; Elsinger, N.; Frank, L.; Kirby, Y Martin, K.; McGrath, K.; Merenstein, B.; Moreland, D.; North, M.; Palmer, J.; Pincince, T.; Tully, J.; Votto, S.

1. Minutes

a. Minutes of January 31, 2022 were accepted.

2. Announcements

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

• AAUP has reached a tentative agreement with the Board of Regents on the contract. It is subject to the SEBAC framework being finalized, which is subject to individual bargaining units (34 of them) finalizing their negotiations. The tentative agreement will go to the membership for ratification and the legislature for approval. AAUP will share a summary of what was gained and lost. Despite the details of the negotiation, the outcome is pretty good. There has been a huge change in climate at the System Office.
• AAUP has made a request to President Toro for the current mask policy to remain in place for the duration of the Spring 2022 semester. The President concurred with that request.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (L. Bigelow)

• SUOAF contract negotiations are continuing.

c. SGA (N. Elsinger)

• Faculty advisors were informed that the deadline for clubs to submit requests for this fiscal year is February 25th.
• Those of you who are faculty advisors to clubs will be receiving information about the budget process. Please make sure that the clubs watch their email.
  • F. Latour asked whether unspent funds are carried over to the next year or go to scholarships. N. Elsinger said anything not spent by June 30th rolls back to the SGA reserves. She encouraged clubs to find appropriate ways to spend the allocations they have been given. Up to 25% of the reserves can be donated to the SGA scholarship fund in the CCSU Foundation.

d. FAC to the Board of Regents (M. Jackson)

• As reported at the last meeting, the FAC’s Resolution on the Vaccine Mandate, tightening some of the restrictions, was sent to the BOR. It generated quite a bit of discussion at the Academic Affairs subcommittee and that led to give and take between the academic committee and the FAC chair. It became an opportunity to talk about the major reason for the Resolution; it wasn’t to change things, it was to add emphasis in certain areas, such as the need for increased education. It also provided an opportunity to discuss barriers to the FAC executing its role as advisory to the BOR. The Resolution will be on the next BOR agenda; it is not known whether it will be discussed or for informational purposes only.

e. Center for Africana Studies (J. Bishop on behalf of W. Gichiru)

• The Senate Vice President, on behalf of Prof. Gichiru, shared a calendar of events the Center for Africana Studies is sponsoring during the Spring Semester. A link to a OneDrive folder that has flyers for the individual events was shared. The flyers include links to join the virtual events.

f. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• F. Latour gave thanks to everyone involved with contract negotiations.
• Reminder: We still need a SEPS representative to run for the vacant seat on the University Planning & Budget Committee.
• As the campus community has been informed, a task force has been formed to discuss the possibility of creating a College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. The Faculty Senate has advisory capacity with regard to things such as reorganizations. The head of the task force is available and will attend our next meeting to give the Senate an update.
• Committee reports will be coming to the Senate throughout the semester and most of them usually come toward the end of the semester. They are posted along with the Senate agenda. Many of the reports are informational. If anyone wishes to have a representative of a particular committee come to the Senate to discuss its report, please contact F. Latour so that a representative may be invited to the Senate. Otherwise, it will be assumed that the report is accepted.Mli>Concerns have been expressed about the length of recent Senate meetings. In the future, when there is an agenda item that may lead to long debate, the Steering Committee may propose to limit the debate, such as maximum of fifteen minutes for the debate and maximum 2-3 minutes per person. This is not set in stone. If at the end of the set time there is interest to continue, there is the possibility to extend the limits of the debate.
• Concerns have also been raised that the conditions of debate in an online meeting are not the same as conditions of debate at an in-person meeting. At an in-person meeting, people ask for the floor and speak. There is no opportunity for “chat” at an in-person meeting, like there is at an online meeting. One way to level the playing field is for the chat settings to be adjusted so that during debate, chat messages can only be sent to the Senate President and Vice President. This will eliminate the possibility of three people debating at the same time – one by speaking and two by chatting. This would be consistent with the most recent Robert’s Rules.
• It is also Worth reminding everyone that once everyone who wishes to speak has spoken once, people who wish to speak a second time would be called upon. As a final reminder, when someone speaks, they should address the Senate President, not individuals.
• At the last Fall semester Senate meeting, the Senate Steering Committee was charged with looking into when in-person meetings could resume. The committee is continuing to monitor that.

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 (N. Moore)

• N. Moore reviewed the Curriculum Committee report circulated with the meeting agenda, highlighting several items while scrolling through the report.
• MOTION: To accept the Curriculum Committee Report. Motion passed.

b. Constitution and Bylaws Committee (J. Duquette)

• W. Broulik presented proposed changes to the Senate Bylaws and Constitution, as distributed with the meeting agenda. J. Duquette joined the discussion after the first motion below was passed.
• MOTION: To change the name of the “Diversity Committee” to “Equity, Justice and Inclusion Committee” as listed in the Senate Bylaws. Hearing no debate, the motion was put to a vote. Motion passed.

• MOTION: To add “followed by the approval by the president of the university” after “An amendment to this Constitution of the Faculty Senate shall go into effect immediately on passage by a vote of the majority voting in a secret ballot of the entire faculty” in section 4.7 of the Senate Constitution. Hearing no debate, the motion was put to a vote. It was clarified that a vote in favor was a vote to send this to a vote of the full faculty. Motion passed.

• MOTION: To add “program assessment” to the list of areas over which the Faculty Senate has decision-making authority as referenced in section 2.2 of the Senate Constitution.
• F. Latour clarified that program assessment is not on the list of things that the Senate has decision-making or advisory authority on, which is primarily because program assessment at the time the Constitution was written was not nearly as robust as it is now. He also clarified the difference between program assessment and external program review. The Senate does have advisory capacity on the matter of external program review and the Senate’s advice in this area has been sought.
• J. Duquette indicated that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee strongly recommends this amendment to the Senate.
• President Toro asked what decision-making authority means to the Senate and, similarly, what “part of the shared governance process” means. F. Latour gave the example of the Curriculum Committee, where the faculty makes the decision, but the President has veto power. The idea is that updating the curriculum is up to the faculty. Advisory capacity means the Senate has the right to give its opinion, but in the end, the administration makes the final decision and can go against the advisory opinion. J. Duquette added that decision-making authority is a prerequisite to shared governance; governance cannot be shared if both sides do not have decision-making authority.
• Y. Kirby added that both 2.2 and 2.3 are required for NECHE. On the chance that Faculty Senate decided to discontinue program assessment, that would be a significant issue. F. Latour stated that if that happened, the President would almost certainly veto the bill, and given that example, have a pretty good reason to do that.
• J. Mulrooney added that “program assessment” and “program review” are terms used on our website. He cautioned the Senate to be careful that the two not be mixed up because of potential accreditation issues.
• K. Kostelis reiterated that while the President would have the power to veto something that negatively impacted accreditation, the process, including the shared governance piece, needs to be taken into consideration.
• Sen. Crundwell recapped the areas where the Senate already has decision-making authority and commented that NEASC has not complained about the Senate’s decision-making authority over those areas. Therefore, he sees no concern with expansion of the list to include program assessment and advising.
• President Toro focused the argument stating it is not about NEASC complaining that faculty have decision-making authority. The argument is what the implication would be if the faculty decided to stop program assessment. F. Latour reiterated that the President has veto power.
• Sen. Barr stated that the Faculty Senate need decision-making authority because they know their students, department structures, rubrics, and outcomes, etc. and do work with the administration in this area. It should come through the faculty and departments to the Senate, and not through a top-down approach.
• Sen. Duquette supported the President’s statement and clarified that decision-making authority does not mean final decision-making authority. The Senate should not neuter itself; it should not be treated as through it would act irresponsibly.
• L. Frank asked for program assessment to be defined. Program assessment as a whole seems to fit better under section 2.3. How will the proposed decision-making authority impact program assessment at the University?
• Hearing no further debate, it was clarified that a vote in favor was a vote to send this to a vote of the full faculty. Motion passed.

• MOTION: To add “advising” to the list of areas over which the Faculty Senate has decision-making authority as referenced in section 2.2 of the Senate Constitution.
• Sen. Bigelow expressed concern about the term “advising” related to the SUOAF collective bargaining agreement and asked for clarification of the intent, with examples. F. Latour indicated that it would likely be in the area of policies and not the day-to-day workload of the professional advisors. Sen. Bigelow proposed an amendment to the motion to add the word “policies” after “advising.”
• MOTION: To amend the proposal by adding the word “policies” after “advising.” Motion seconded (Villanti).
• Sen. Duquette stated that the motion was redundant because the document is the Constitution. In his view, it would not clarify, but instead cause questions. F. Latour indicated that “policies” is already in the document with regard to admissions.
• Sen. Crundwell spoke against the motion stating that the reason that advising and program assessment are coming up now is because we already have standing committees of the faculty that have been doing this work for a long time. The committee on academic advising and its functions and responsibilities are the scope of our advising decision-making capabilities. The policies being sought are already in the committee’s bylaws, already on the website.
• President Toro disputed Sen. Crundwell’s statement saying the mission of the Committee on Academic Advising speaks to the Committee’s role as an advisory role on advising issues, not a decision-making role. If this passes, the mission of the Committee will change to be a decision-making entity. In addition, she stated, advising is an important element in student retention and evolves on a daily basis in order for us to retain students and lead them to success. Having to go through the Senate process to make changes to advising will make the institution less adaptable and less nimble. She also stated she does not understand how the committee could omit the Director of Advising, the person in charge of and most familiar with advising.
• MOTION: To amend the proposal by adding the word “policies” after “advising.”
• Motion seconded (Villanti). Motion passed.
• MOTION: To add “advising policy” to the list of areas over which the Faculty Senate has decision-making authority as referenced in section 2.2 of the Senate Constitution.
• Sen. Bishop sought clarity on how this is operationalized. She proposed sending the “advising policy” matter back to the Senate Steering Committee for further discussion.
• Sen. Duquette supported the motion.
• MOTION: To send the matter to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee. Motion passed.

• MOTION: To add “external program review” to the list of areas over which the Faculty Senate serves in an advisory capacity as referenced in section 2.3 of the Senate Constitution.
• President Toro asked how this advisory capacity will be operationalized? What is the role of the Senate in the External Review Process that is essentially driven by the department and the Dean? F. Latour indicated that the role would be what it has been in the past. For example, M. Fallon came to the Senate with the External Review Policy, sought the Senate’s opinion, the Senate gave it, and some of the Senate’s suggestions were incorporated.
• Motion was approved.

4. New Business

a. Committee on Committees (G. Crundwell)- Bylaws of Committee on Academic Advising

• Sen. Crundwell stated that the Committee on Committees spoke with the Chair of the Committee on Academic Advising and suggested changes. Since the advising structure has changed, the representation has changed. The Director of Disability Services, or designee, was added as an ex-officio, non-voting member. The committee chair reported that when consulted, the director of Undergraduate Advising questioned why her position would be included in committee membership since there were give representatives from undergraduate advising already on the committee; this could be changed. Language was added to address when elections will be held. The Functions and Responsibilities section, the Roles & Expectations section was updated to include the current structures. The meeting time and day(s) was also added.
• Sen. Elfant provided clarification. She stated she did not ask “why do I need to be here.” Members of the committee felt there was too much representation from undergraduate advising and a motion ensued about who should be on the committee and voting and non-voting members, and it was decided that the Director should not be on the committee.
• F. Latour asked whether it was necessary for the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment to be on the committee. Sen. Crundwell recalled that the chair said that they do not need to be at every meeting, but available when needed. Y. Kirby affirmed she would be available when needed. G. Crundwell indicated that this position could be omitted from the committee and the Director of Undergraduate Advising could be added.
• Sen. Bishop made a motion to replace the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment (ex-officio, non-voting) with the Director of Undergraduate Advising (ex-officio, non-voting).
• Sen. Halkin asked why wouldn’t the Director of Undergraduate Advising not be on the committee, as either a voting or non-voting member.
• It was noted that it is the Department of Undergraduate Advising, not the Division of Undergraduate Advising.
• Sen. Halkin said her question is for the Director of Undergraduate Advising. (Someone clarified Sen. Halkin was speaking in favor of adding the Director of Undergraduate Advising.)
• MOTION: to amend the amendment by adding the Director of Undergraduate Advising to the Committee on Academic Advising. Motion passed.
• MOTION: to amend the amendment by replacing the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment and replace with the Director of Undergraduate Advising. Motion passed.
• MOTION: to approve the proposed amended bylaws.
• D. Moreland asked if we are setting up the Director of Undergraduate Advising to essentially managing five of her staff one way, with the potential for conflict, even though the non-elected staff may be elected at a different time.
• Sen. Crundwell stated we as a Senate have to craft our opinion, but to do so, we need information, and that information comes from ex-officio, non-voting members. We have to take it on good faith that ex-officio, non-voting members, even if they may be our direct supervisors, will not hold it against us for forming opinions which may or may not be compatible with the administration’s. The question about will the advisors on the committee feel unduly scrutinized? That is on the directors. We have roles on shared governance. If we are concerned about retribution for making unpopular decisions, then send someone who is not afraid to voice their opinion, or vote to remove the directors, at the cost of obtaining the information you need to formulate a good opinion. We hope people are collegial and share information and differences in opinion are not attacks.
• D. Moreland commented that he raised the question from the point of view of whether having some advisors on the committee may creates bad morale and that may impact performance. He suggested the committee may be better served not having all of the voting members from the department of Undergraduate Advising. Sen. Bigelow commented that a number of academic advisors are new and many do not have continuing appointment. She suggested that some may not feel comfortable voicing their opinion on a committee where they (as a group) hold a minority vote. She further suggested considering increasing the number of SUOAF representatives to 8 and that the additional SUOAF seats be at-large. Sen. Crundwell indicated the numbers came from the Committee chair and he would go back to the chair, if desired.
• MOTION: Sen. Bray moved that this be sent back to the Committee on Committees for further analysis. Motion seconded.
• Sen. Salama supported Sen. Bray’s motion.
• Motion passed.

5. Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned at 5:03pm.