Faculty Senate

Minutes - February 28, 2022 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Acharya, K.; Al-Masoud, N.; Amaya, L.; Andreoletti, C.; Atkinson, S.; Benoit, D.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Crundwell, G.; Donahue, P.; Duquette, J.; Dumpson, N.; Elfant, A.; Emeagwali, G.; Fallon, M.; Flinn, B.; Foshay, J.; Foster, P.; Gamache, J.; Garbovskiy, Y.; Garcia-Bowen, M.; Gichiru, W.; Givens, E.; Gonzalez, K.; Halkin, S.; Hazan, S.; Hedlund, J.; Hernandez, J.; Huang, Y.; Hughes, H.; Jackson, M.; Jarmoszko, T.; Kaczmarek, M.; Kapper, M.; Langevin, K.; Larsen, K.; Lewis, M.; Martin, A.; Matthews, S.; Matzke, B.; McCarthy, M.; Merenstein, B.; Morano, P.; Moriarty, M.; Ofray, J.; Orange, M.; Oyewumi, Y.; Paolino, J.; Patterson, Y.; Pope, C.; Robinson, G.; Salama, T.; Savatorova, V.; Schenck, S.; Scoggins, M.; Scott, T.; Sikorski, J.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Spear, E.; Styrczula, S.; Sylvester, C.; Vargas, C.; Villanti, S.; Washko, L.; Whittemore, L.; Zabihimayvan, M.; Zadi, S.; Zhao, S.

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

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Bantley, K.; Blitz, D.; Bucher, L.; Cintorino, S.; Elsinger, N.; Frank, L.; Martin, K.; McGrath, K.; Miller, S.; Moreland, D.; Palmer, J.; Pincince, T.; Suski-Lenczewski, A.; Tully, J.; Votto, S.

1. Minutes

a. Minutes of February 14, 2022 were accepted.

2. Announcements

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (L. Bigelow)

c. SGA (N. Elsinger)

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

e. Center for Africana Studies (J. Bishop, S. Zadi)

f. 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. New College of Rehabilitation and Health Sciences Task Force (K. Bantley)

K. Bantley gave a presentation that touched on the following points:

    • The Task Force will be meeting with the Senate on a regular basis, however it has only met twice to date to establish a timeline, therefore she may not have all of the answers to questions that come up at this meeting.
    • The timeline they are working with calls for the establishment of the new College by Fall 2026.
    • The current priority is to establish the new programs that will be part of the new College. In the very near future a director of the Doctor in Physical Therapy will be hired and that program will debut in Winter 2025.  The other new program that will be developed is the master’s degree in Social Work (MSW).  That is on a fast track, with a start date of Spring 2023.  Those programs will go through all of the required committees and come to the Senate for approval. The third program will be based on rehabilitation engineering, which will be either a concentration or a certificate.  That is up in the air; the Engineering Department has asked to meet with the Task Force and that is likely to happen in April.
    • The establishment of the community clinic is also in early planning stages. K. Bantley will be meeting with Atty. Votto to explore all of the areas that need to be considered.
    • There are a lot of moving parts.  A lot of committees will be involved in the process.  Questions were sought and encouraged because it would help the Task Force to be proactive in its work. She requested that questions be emailed to her at BantleyK at ccsu.edu.
    • In summary, she said the College could be a win for the university. It will help increase enrollment, address needs in the healthcare system (i.e., employment shortages), while also addressing meeting basic needs in the community (i.e., health screenings).

Questions:

    • Are there existing programs that will be moving to the new school?  No final decisions have been made, but this is under discussion.  The Doctor of Physical Therapy and Doctor of NAP are under consideration. She noted that being moved and being a part of the new College are two different things.  Nursing, Exercise Science, Athletic Training and whatever rehabilitation engineering programs that develop are being considered.  They may not be moved into the new College, but, rather, be affiliated with the new College.
    • Sen. Andreoletti reminded everyone that CCSU is a member of the Age Friendly University Global Network.  She asked that the programs in the new College are getting adequate training in aging and gerontology and the new clinic be mindful of that and involve working with older populations in our community.
    • Will existing programs have a say in whether or not they are moved?  Everyone will have an opinion and if there are concerns, the Task Force would want to know about them so they could consider them.  Everyone will have a voice, but that is different from having a say.  The Task Force will be making recommendations and will be taking a wide variety of issues into consideration.  While moving programs into a new school is within the scope of the Task Force’s work, it would not be done in a vacuum.  F. Latour requested that the Task Force come to the Senate so that they may exercise their advisory authority.
    • Rehabilitation engineering is a broad discipline.  Where will the Task Force start?  K. Bantley indicated that is an example of why the Task Force will be meeting with individual faculty and academic departments.  In part, it will be determined by what they are capable of doing in the near future.
    • How will the community clinic interface with our current Health Services?  That is not known at this point in time.  We need to look at things like licensure and regulations.  The Task Force will be reaching out to stakeholders across campus to gauge their interest and how they might fit within the regulatory framework.  While this question it premature, it will be explored.
    • Wil you be considering moving individual faculty from their department based on their academic background and research? Priority is to get the new programs on the books.  When it comes down to the nuts and bolts, that is not yet known.  Those things will be discussed by the Task Force, which will reach out to people as needed so that they take everything into consideration when making their recommendations.
    • Sen. Al-Masoud spoke in support of the initiative on behalf of his department.  He asked the logic of having a new College, rather than making changes to an existing school.  K. Bantley shared her personal opinion: she is supportive of the new college because of how education and marketing are changing.  Having a college of this nature, with this focus, will enable the University to attract interested students to the university.  The crisis in the healthcare industry also plays a role; this will allow us to cater to this new market, which has a labor shortage.
    • Sen. Hernandez asked if there would be a record or other documentation regarding how members of the community would be contacted to provide input.  K. Bantley indicated that if there are existing community relationships, they should be leveraged, and efforts should be combined. She also indicated that minutes would be taken at all Task Force meetings.
    • Sen. Scott spoke in support of the development of the MSW program. He echoed Sen. Hernandez’s point that it is important to obtain community input (through a needs assessment) so that we work with them to meet needs, rather than impose solutions on marginalized communities. He called attention to the use of the term “health sciences”, indicating that social work is multi-dimensional and, while it is informed by science, it does not consider itself a science. He asked how Social Work fits into the sciences. K. Bantley indicated that with Social Work being a part of the new clinic by providing some screenings, it is also included because even when people have medical issues, they may still end up working with social workers.  Sen. Scott also mentioned that resources and bandwidth of the Social Work department would need to be considered.
    • Is the proposed name set in stone?  What if the Task Force thinks of something different?  Someone suggested the name College of Health Professions.
    • M. Jackson thanked K. Bantley for her work on the Task Force.  He asked about the notion that this would be a new and separate college.  He cited that the university’s Strategic Plan, puts emphasis on interdisciplinary centers for excellence, but it does not mention a new college. He said it seems that creating a new college will create a lot of overhead, as will the creation of new academic departments, and this may decrease the interactions between faculty, and create silos.  He wondered whether it might be better to embrace the notion of interdisciplinary collaboration.
      • President Toro noted that the Board of Regents has claimed ownership of the words “centers” and “institutes” and that to establish either, we must declare that it is financially self-supporting with external funding. While it may be a best practice to foster multidisciplinary programs, we have to work with the limitations we have.
    • M. Jackson reiterated he thought the centers for excellence were a great idea.
    • A comment posted in the chat said it may be a good idea to include community members on the Task Force if we are planning to have a community clinic.
    • Will the Task Force be estimating the additional costs to the university in addition to estimating the potential for increased revenue? The Task Force has not gotten that far into the conversation, but it obviously must identify financial considerations.

4. Unfinished Business

a. Constitution and Bylaws Committee (J. Duquette)
    • The Senate resumed discussion of the proposal to add “advising policy” to the list of things where the Senate has decision-making authority.  This was referred to the Senate Steering Committee at the last Senate meeting.  The Steering Committee met to discuss the proposal, which it determined to be reasonable.  F. Latour indicated that “advising policy” was clearer than saying just “advising” and that the proposal would strengthen the role of the Advising Committee. He noted faculty and professional advisors need to collaborate and it may not be a bad idea to have a policy on how they would interact.
    • MOTION: To add “advising policy” to the list of things where the Senate has decision-making authority.
    • Sen. Halkin reviewed her interpretation of the proposal. F. Latour stated that the Senate does not have the authority to make changes to collective bargaining agreements and that anything the Senate may approve goes to the President to be approved or vetoed.  He opined that it was almost a certainty that the President would veto something that conflicted with a collective bargaining agreement.
    • President Toro asked if there was anyone present from Human Resources to weigh in on whether there are any conflicts with collective bargaining agreements.  She also questioned how what happens in this Senate may impact SUOAF members on the other university campuses.
    • CHRO Suski-Lenczewski noted that we cannot have a Senate resolution that is contradictory to a collective bargaining agreement or gives additional rights to the Senate that are not subscribed in the contract.
    • Sen. Elfant noted that the Committee on Undergraduate Advising is in the process of updating their bylaws and the copy she saw said that only AAUP members on the committee would have voting rights.
    • Sen. Smith agrees that there should not be conflicts between collective bargaining agreements and what the Senate does.  She asked the CHRO if she could cite specific contractual language that was in danger of being violated if this motion passed.  The CHRO said the concern is that the Senate makes a recommendation to the President and the President has the right to approve or veto the recommendation.  She is concerned that the right of the president not be taken away by the Senate. F. Latour said that is not what is being proposed.
    • President Toro questioned the composition of the advising committee in terms voting rights.  If there is an imbalance, with AAUP members having a majority of the votes compared to the  SUOAF members on the committee, essentially, AAUP members would be dictating conditions of employment and what SUOAF members will be doing on a day-to-day work, and that is a violation of the SUOAF contract.
    • Sen Crundwell noted that the SUOAF contract guarantees them representation in the Senate, while AAUP has in their contract, the right to form a Senate.  Southern does not have a University Senate like we do; they have a faculty senate, and it does not have SUOAF members.  We allow SUOAF to have representation on our Senate, which is all that is required in their contract.  As for the bylaws of the Advising Committee, right now the Senate Bylaws, in section Q3, states “Voting membership on committees whose role is to fulfill duties mandated by the CSU-AAUP/BOT contract, or whose existence is mandated by the contract, shall be restricted to AAUP faculty members, and shall adhere to any membership rules prescribed by the contract.”  He noted that because the AAUP states that faculty have to do advising, whereas the SUOAF contract does not, either this section would need to be changed, the bylaws of the Advising Committee would need to be changed, or the Advising Committee would need to be exempted from this section of the Senate’s Bylaws.
    • Sen. Bigelow quoted Article 2 of the SUOAF-AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement, Recognition, which states, “While Management retains the right to meet with individuals to hear views on any matters, it is agreed that Management will not negotiate individually with any administrative faculty member or with any other organization pertaining to matters of wages, hours, and conditions of employment of a bargaining unit member now will management request or designate a member to do so on their behalf. The Board will not employ a member on terms less favorable than those stated herein.”  Based on this clause, concerns were raised about the role of the Senate committee coming in between the relationship that exists between SUOAF and Management.  In addition, singling out the professional advisors would violate the last sentence of the cited article in that they would be treated differently than SUOAF members in other roles whose work is not subject to the work of a Senate committee.
    • “Could we use language that only refers to faculty advising issues?” was posted in the chat, but not discussed, other than F. Latour’s statement that that would have to be proposed as an amendment.
    • “Why is this such a big issue for advising, when we passed the motion about assessment, and there are SUOAF members doing that work?” was posted in the chat but not discussed.
    • President Toro indicated that we need to look at what our sister institutions are doing in this area because, according to the SUOAF contract language that was cited, if we are treating our advisors differently than advisors at the other institutions, we have a problem because all of them are governed by t he same contract.  She cited Eastern saying that this committee does not have decision-making authority. She also acknowledged that Southern has two separate senates. She urged the senate to look at every angle and now put her in the awkward position of having to veto something else that comes from the Senate, because she does not want to have to do that.
    • Sen. Duquette said that he is not seeing any conflict with contract language, but he is hearing adjacent concerns. 
    • Sen. Crundwell sided with Sen. Duquette and cited his two reasons for doing so:  SUOAF already has a minority vote on the existing Advising Committee, and nothing has gone wrong.  They are only seeking to put advising in the same category as all of the other things that faculty does; passing this motion will not cause the Advising Committee to rewrite how to do advising. Nothing radical is going to come out of the Advising Committee just because of this change.  We obviously need to shore up language in the Senate and Advising Committee bylaws. He called the issue that had been cited a red herring.
    • CHRO Suski-Lenczewski echoed Sen. Bigelow saying that job descriptions for SUOAF members cannot be set by Senate.  There is a process whereas job descriptions are negotiated between management and SUOAF.  The concern is that something will come out of the Advising Committee that says SUOAF advisors will do X, Y, and Z, and that would put Dr. Toro in a very awkward position.  F. Latour stated, again, that if that were to happen, Dr. Toro would veto it and SUOAF would raise an issue either in Senate or on the Advising Committee.
    • Sen. Duquette reiterated that he understands the concerns and they make sense, but there are levels at which they can be stopped.  If something were to get through the process, the Senate would have made a mistake and a veto would be the right decision.  It should be assumed that the committee will do a good job.  He said we are creating a problem we do not have.

     

    • Sen. Bigelow note that the SUOAF vote is in the minority on both the Senate and the Advising committee. IT will never get to the point where we have equal votes.  Because of that, there is a high risk that a mistake affecting SUOAF work can be made. She stated that Article 2 is one of the core articles in the SUOAF contract and because of that, she wanted time to seek advice from SUOAF’s legal counsel. F. Latour noted she would have to make a motion to postpone.
    • Motion:  to postpone this matter until SUOAF could consult legal counsel. 
    • Sen. Crundwell disagreed saying that the AAUP contract stated that a majority of the Senate shall be drawn from AAUP. He spoke in favor of voting on the original motion.
    • Sen. Elfant supported Sen. Bigelow’s point about SUOAF being outvoted in the committee.  She said that even before the pending bylaws change, SUOAF had a minority vote and that this change is proposing even fewer SUOAF voting members.  In the very least, she requested that the committee’s bylaws be revised before the original motion is considered. There are two big pieces in flux at the same time
    • A question about setting a date for continuation of the discussion was raised.  The motion on the floor was amended to become:
    • MOTION:  to postpone this matter until the first meeting in April.  Motion passed.
    • F. Latour noted that Sen. Crundwell had asked for the Committee on Committees to meet with the Senate Steering Committee.  Sen. Crundwell indicated he would put that on hold until SUOAF has spoke with legal counsel.

5. Adjournment