Faculty Senate

Minutes - January 31, 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.; Benoit, D.; Best, F.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Cameron, J.; Crundwell, G.; Donahue, P.; 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.; Gonzalez, K.; Halkin, S.; Hedlund, J.; Hernandez, J.; Huang, Y.; Hughes, H.; Jackson, M.; Jarmoszko, T.; Kara-Soteriou, J.; Karas, R.; Kean, K.; Kreeger, J.; Kumar, R.; Langevin, K.; Larsen, K.; Lewis, M.; Marchese, L.; Martin, A.; Matthews, S.; Matzke, B.; Merenstein, B.; Morano, P.; Orange, M.; Oyewumi, Y.; Paolino, J.; Patterson, Y.; Phillips, E.; Robinson, G.; Rode, D.; Salama, T.; Santilli, M.; Savatorova, V.; Schenck, S.; Sikorski, J.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Spear, E.; Sugg, K.; Sylvester, C.; Vargas, C.; Villanti, S.; Washko, L.; Whittemore, L.; Zabihimayvan, M.; Zadi, S.; Zhao, S.

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

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Bucher, L.; Cintorino, S.; Claffey, G.; Elsinger, N.; Kirby, Y.;Martin, K.; McGrath, K.; Miller, S.; Moreland, D.; Palmer, J.; Suski-Lenczewski, A.; Tully, J.; Votto, S.; Werblow, J.

1. Minutes

a. Minutes of December 6, 2021 were accepted.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

• Over the last couple of weeks, the negotiations between SEBAC and the Governor’s office have been progressing. That is going to take precedence over the financial element of contract negotiations. The SEBAC is a framework that we will all benefit from. It is important to note that we (SEBAC) are not giving anything back to the Governor and it is actually looking pretty good. No numbers are being released right now.
• Board negotiations are non-existent at the moment. If the SEBAC framework is agreed to, we would have to complete our negotiations with the Board in order for that framework to take effect.
• The assumption is that there will be pressure on the Board from the Governor’s office to resolve this as soon as possible so that the Governor does not have to negotiate independently with 20+ unions while he is running for re-election in November. We are more hopeful that we were in December.
• The lead negotiator for the BOR is stepping back from his duties and will be in a supportive role. We take this as a positive sign because part of the issues we had with the lead negotiator had to do with his professionalism. Maybe things will go more smoothly now that those changes have been made. Nonetheless, we are still negotiating.
• The Legislature will be in session as of next Wednesday. We may ask you to go testify about specific bills as things develop in the legislature. There are things we wish to raise, including counselor/student ratios, part-time unemployment – a big issue because a lot of part-timers cannot get unemployment benefits in the summer because there is the anticipation they will be employed in September. There are a bunch more issues that we are looking at as well. Please be willing to provide testimony; it will be online for a large majority of the session.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (J. Gamache/L. Bigelow)

• SUOAF contract negotiations are progressing in the same way as the AAUP negotiations. An additional step (for all contracts) is that the Legislature now has the power of final proposal.
• Retirements – SUOAF members planning to retire prior to July 1 are encouraged to get their paperwork in ASAP so that planning for the refill of their position can begin.
• The next Chapter meeting will be on February 10 at noon, on Teams.

c. SGA (N. Elsinger)

• One of the SGA’s goals this semester is working with the Communication Office about the updated CCSU Blueprint for this semester. We are looking for the information to be presented a way that is more easily digested by students.
• 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)

• The FAC has met a few times since the last Senate meeting. At the last Senate meeting we passed a resolution to strengthen the restrictions on non-medical exemptions. Similar measures were taken at SCSU and we brought the matter to the FAC, which on January 10th passed a similar COVID resolution:
  • tightens the non-medical exemptions;
  • emphasizers improving education campaign
  • calls for meetings on each campus president and senate and union presidents to review data to better inform policy;
  • also calls for extension of the use of Medicat data to the community colleges, where it has not yet been available;
  • restrictions were tightened on non-medical exemptions (no strictly personal reasons, religious exemptions should be based on established tenets of that religion, and all other exemption requests must require a meeting with student for discussion about their reason);
  • it also talked about enforcement – not only vaccination, but classroom mask policy; it also emphasized a progressive approach of increased discipline (first a warning, progressive increase up to suspension, but not expulsion).
  • The deadline that was proposed for reporting vaccination status was today, January 31. This will not be met because this was unanimously approved by the FAC, but it has not been commented on nor acted upon by the BOR other than to say it was not submitted using correct procedures (should have been sent first to interim provost Ken Klucznick and appropriate committee). The problem is that the process proscribes sending such a proposal to the related committee, and there is no directly related committee. It is on the agenda for the Academic and Student Affairs Committee for February 4 at 9:30 a.m., but it is listed as being for informational purposes only (along with sabbatical leaves.) An update will be provided at the next Senate meeting.
  • G. Crundwell suggested anything being submitted be submitted to everyone at the Board. F. Latour asked how someone would send something to the members of the Board since they do not publicize their email addresses. This will be discussed with the FAC.
• At the January 21 meeting there were some updates on ACME. Basically, it is moving along like a freight train.
  • Naugatuck Valley Community College’s Curriculum and Educational Affairs Committee (CEAC) drafted a letter in response to the Students First Academic and Student Affairs Consolidation Committee making three comments: (1) they wanted to see more shared governance, (2) that shared governance is needed for faculty buy-in, and (3) that the BOR provide a list of members, their roles, and specifying who is being paid by the BOR and who is a volunteer. The BOR responded by saying the faculty have been obstinate and resistant to change.
  • In that discussion, M. Jackson asked if we know who are on any of these committees and said it would be great if the FAC representatives for each campus had a list of who on their campus is working on the BOR on these committees so they can update the FAC on what is being done. The response to Mark’s question was that that was “a great plan” that they have been being asked for forever, but has never been done. There seems to be an attempt to keep people in the dark. Mark asked that if there are people on our campus working on some of these committees, please share what is happening with Mark via email. The FAC is really in the dark.
  • G. Crundwell wrote in the chat: ” whatever politician had your back in the formation of the FAC... send it to them with the email reprimand chain. Point out the absurdity to those who are suspicious of the BOR”
  • F. Latour said it should also be sent to the new group of legislators mentioned at the last meeting – those who are not supportive of the BOR.
  • T. Burkholder said that one of the pieces of legislation AAUP will be pushing for is making the FAC representative on the BOR a voting member of the Board. AAUP has been pushing for this since 2012 and has not gotten there yet.
• Timeline for the substantive change to NECHE
• CSCU is Meeting with NECHE on March 3rd.
• They have to complete their substantial change in early February for submission in mid-February
• Well over 1300 individuals formally participated in the commentary, although it was mentioned we don’t know the number that is duplicative because some people participated in more than one way.
• At the December 16th BOR meeting, D. Blitz spoke to the BOR requesting for regular agenda item on the BOR agenda to accommodate a monthly report from FAC. The only comment was that President Cheng agreed that more dialogue is the goal.
• F. Latour commended tat the FAC is only on the BOR agenda twice a year, and that is the BOR’s substitute for actually having joint meetings with the FAC which they are supposed to have by law.
• M. Jackson noted that the first ever joint meeting was held in November, which President Cheng attended, but only a few members of the BOR attended. Mark was there. It was handled like a legislative meeting where the FAC had a couple of people present prepared statement with the hope that would lead to dialogue, but that did not happen. President Cheng spoke for 20 minutes. It started positive but did not end that way. That was hopefully the beginning of a new phase of the role of the FAC, which is to advise. But at the next meeting of the BOR, we were informed that we did not need another joint meeting. The FAC has been speaking to the BOR similar to how the public may comment to BOR (2 minutes for public comments.)
• F. Latour noted that the low BOR member turnout at the November joint meeting sounds irresponsible.
• G. Crundwell noted that the lack of respect is astonishing.

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• At the last Senate meeting, the Steering Committee was charged with the possibility of having in-person Senate meetings this spring. The Steering Committee feels now is not the time, because of the Omicron variant. It will continue to monitor the situation.
• A few years ago, there was a motion to create a webpage for department bylaws. Such a website has been created. Right now, we are trying to make sure that all of the documents posted are accurate and have been approved by the appropriate dean. Once verification has completed, the page will go live on the Senate webpage.
• We sometimes get reports from the UPBC on various issues that affect the budget of the university. There is a new chair of that committee – Sen. Bray from Biology. In addition, there is the need to fill one vacancy on that committee and that has to be someone from the School of Education and Professional Studies. A call for nominations was sent and the number of nominees was zero. Therefore, the election on today’s agenda cannot take place. If you know anyone in SEPS who would be good for the committee, please encourage them to nominate themselves.
• In the last few weeks, Fred has received some requests from various faculty and also from the administration for the Senate to take up some possible changes to the Constitution of the Senate. Normally, that does not come from the administration, but what happened this time is that they pointed out that there is something in the Constitution that conflicts with a bargaining unit contract. Of course, any such change to the Constitution has to be approved not only by the Senate, but the faculty as a whole. I have received a report from the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, but this cannot be voted on today, because the report has to be shared for review. It will be shared and the Senate should expect this matter to come up for a vote at an upcoming meeting.
• You may have heard via email about the proposal for the new College of Health and Rehabilitation Science. The Senate has advisory capacity on an issue such as this (organizational structure of the university). F. Latour has spoken with the chair or co-chair of the committee or task force charged with creating the new College. Fred will make sure that the Senate gets periodic updates on what is happening with this. The committee is in the beginning stages of their work; their first meeting is this Friday.
• When the Senate approves a motion or a resolution, it goes to the President so it can be approved or vetoed. There are two announcements in this respect:
• The proposed name change for the Department of Geography was approved in the Senate and sent to President Toro where it was not vetoed, but deferred. The President would like to wait until we have the result of the meeting of the ad hoc committee to consider the possibility of a multi-disciplinary program in Sustainability before making a final decision.
• On the Senate agenda today is the President’s decision on the proposal to create a new department. As you will recall from last semester, the Senate voted against recommending the creation of a new department. Our vote is advisory and the President decided to go ahead with the creation of the new department, as you will see in the report that was posted with the Senate’s agenda. You will see that the plan that was approved by the President is somewhat different from what was considered at our meeting. In particular, we saw a proposal that had a department of 4 people being created, and the President’s approval calls for a department of 5 people.
• Following his report, F. Latour solicited questions about its contents.
  • G. Crundwell asked for the President to speak to why the fifth faculty member was included. He indicated he did some research on the fifth faculty member and this is what she teaches: EDL 590, EDL 745, EDL 705, EDL 700, EDL 701, EDL 712, EDL 714, EDL 715, EDL 691, EDL 630, EDL 606, EDL 605, and EDL 688, in addition to teaching honors courses. This person primarily teaches Educational Leadership courses, yet is being put into a new program that focuses on secondary education, English immersion and socio and eco justice learning. He stated that from his perspective, it looks random because it was not what was sent to the Senate. Also, if a faculty had been tenured and promoted to Associate Professor in a department and then moved to a completely different department outside of my specialty, it would hard to get fully promoted, since I would have to start my career over, essentially, in a new discipline. He closed with a question to President Toro: Why was this 5h person added and do you think it is a fair shake to take the classes she used to teach away from her and force her to learn an entirely new discipline?
  • Z. Toro indicated that she will answer and also invited the Dean and Provost to comment as well. Dr. Toro indicated that no decision she makes is random. She put in a lot of thought and gathers a lot of input and information before she makes a decision. When she was at the Senate meeting when this proposal was debated on the floor of the Senate, and had this conversation with the President of the Senate, after that meeting, she was inclined to support the advice of the Senate. However, she decided that such an important decision required all her focus and also required her to gather as much information as possible, so she invited every member of the department to meet with her. Why the person in question was also moved, or is being proposed to be moved? The person was originally in this department. She had a conversation with the person. The person has broad and diverse interests in teaching and research, something I would like to support to the best of our abilities. The person teaches in the International Studies Program as well – and President Toro and others would like to expand her participation in that program. She also has a diverse background, including a background in secondary education as well. Quoting Dr. Toro, “I am not taking away from her the courses she teaches. And that’s clear in my report. There is and will continue to be a process for her to continue to teach in Educational Leadership. I encourage you, my colleagues, to read the entire report and not choose words and phrases used to attack me. There have been rumors that I rushed the decision. Let me say, I took my time. The ad hoc committee that was charged with looking at the situation and recommending to me a candidate for department chair, asked me to meet with them on December 22, and I did, even though I was supposedly already on vacation. I met with them because they said it was a rush and they wanted to make a decision immediately. I was advised by some members of the current department that they wanted my decision as soon as possible. That is why I met when I met with the members who agreed to meet with me; I didn’t rush the decision. I met with them when they were available. I didn’t put pressure, as has been suggested. Yes, the President asked for a meeting. It is not unusual. I meet with a lot of you when you ask for a meeting. My door is always open to the faculty and staff I serve. Finally, there are a lot of rumors about how intimidating it is for an untenured faculty to be asked by the President for a meeting. After those rumors, I have received calls and emails from untenured faculty in the department to say that they were as honest as they could be and that the information that was given was exactly how they felt, and they did not feel intimidated. I just want to let you know I fulfilled my role as President after having gathered as much information as was available to me.”
  • W. Gichiru spoke to state “I have never participated in any Secondary Education meeting since I came to this university.”
  • President Toro asked W. Gichiru if she was in the previous department education. W. Gichiru said she was in elementary education, but not secondary education. K. Kostelis added that those courses that would be going to the new department are not just secondary courses. She said it is also educational policy courses that will remain with the department and that’s where Dr. Gichiru’s expertise was, before moving into educational leadership. Dr. Gichiru was teaching there as well. J. Mulrooney indicated what K. Kostelis said was correct.
  • G. Crundwell asked “Who is going to be scheduling the Educational Leadership courses? Which department chair?” J. Mulrooney said it would be based on the program and it becomes too complicated, a request for a designator change could be made. Each program has clearly defined courses that are associated with it.
  • G. Crundwell: “Are they in the report?” J. Mulrooney responded that he did not feel that it was necessary to put that in the report. G. Crundwell asked “Why not?” J. Mulrooney responded, “Because the programs are all in the catalog with the clearly aligned courses. I was only supplying a justification and reason for creating the new department along curricular and academic lines and also recruitment – improving our program and improving our partnerships within the community.”
  • G. Crundwell asked if it was so clear, why was that person not included in this change from the beginning, two months ago, in the presentation to the Senate If it was so clear, why did it change over break, after committees had met? J. Mulrooney stated “I will own that. In my conversations and in my original versions, I vacillated between 4 and 5 faculty. Dr. Gichiru was always listed as my potential 5th person. You are correct; what originally went to the Senate did include her and the final report did. I acknowledged that when I met with her last week. I apologized and said she should have been made aware sooner. She was not on the preliminary list, but she was on the final list. That was a misstep on my part.” G. Crundwell replied “That could be a career-ending mistake on your part. You are putting her in a department she does not teach in, against her will.”
  • R. Smith said she agreed with G. Crundwell. If she forced to teach Econ, that would be a bloodbath. I understand what the administration is saying in that the scheduling will remain with the individual who schedules those courses, but those individuals are staying in the original department. The director of the 6th year program is in that other department. As a chair, it is difficult enough to schedule cross-listed courses, let alone trying to figure out what my faculty might be teaching in another department. Jim has repeatedly stated in meetings we’ve been in together, and he can correct me if I am wrong: the opportunity to continuing to teach in Ed lead would be available, but that would be scheduled by the other chair, and her chair in the new department would be scheduling her in this new department for other courses. She stated serious concerns about moving someone into a department when their expertise is in another area and saying we will figure out the course assignments later, without building that structure first. I would have preferred to see the scheduling structure laid out first. She will not be in department meetings, interacting with that faculty if her office is moved as well. So how, exactly, does she maintain a consistent curriculum if she does not have contact with the other faculty teaching those courses. It just does not make sense if her expertise is in Educational Leadership, as Guy Crundwell said.
  • J. Mulrooney: She was originally hired in Teacher Education. It is easy to mix them up because they use the same designator. The EDL is used throughout several programs. I am not going to argue it at this point. Dr. Toro stated in her report that Dr. Gichiru is moving to the new department. There is a lot of speculation, but nothing is happening yet. I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think I can give you and answer that will satisfy you. My hope is that this department will flourish and grow and have new courses to teach. I don’t know what the curricular needs will be in two years. It’s unfair to ask me to make a prediction at this point, but what we are doing is aligning the professor’s background with our plans for the future in secondary and Master’s programs.
  • F. Latour asked if there is a precedent at the university for courses owned by one department to be scheduled by another department. He said he’s been at a university where that was common. He encouraged all parties involved in this to make sure that everything is put in writing so people know what is being agreed upon.

3. Election of one member of the University Planning and Budget Committee

• Did not happen because no one was nominated.

4. 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)  

(reports without a link are annual reports from last year that have yet to be received)

a. Update on First Year Experience (J. Bishop)

• J. Bishop said that the advisory group approved last year has met. The FYE committee was converted to an advisory group last semester. Leadership stayed in place. They met with Provost Kostelis. They were asked the greatest need; their response was that they needed leadership to be named. The advisory group is now waiting for that. Then, Enrollment Management changes happened and that impacted people involved in FYE and that caused somewhat of a stall, because we had no one to take our advisement to. We did continue in 1 places: student wellness. Mental health first aid training has occurred for over 100 people. They have embedded counselors in every orientation presentation and did a presentation at orientation about the Student Wellness Center. That piece has been making progress.
• The other piece that made good progress was the mini pilot on the First Year Experience . K. Larsen is spearheading that and got it done. K. Larsen then presented and reviewed this PowerPoint. J. Bishop indicated that a more formal report was being prepared. [add K. Larsen’s PopiwerPoint]
• K. Kostelis followed up on the presentation with the following update: the deans were looking forward to hearing this report so that they could appropriately plan for the Fall. Following up on our meeting, we are continuing to look at the advantages and disadvantages of continuing with a faculty director; in our continued discussion with our Student Success Team, with New Student Programs, deans, and assistant and associate deans it was determined that we needed more of a commitment at the university-level and have secured funding through some changes in Academic Affairs to have a Director of FYE, committing more to that, and I have been in communication with Fred a couple of times about that process. She is excited to be able to continue to partner on this; the work is important and that’s why we wanted to commit an administrative position to help support that and partner with the FYE Advisory Committee.
• S. Halkin complimented the work being done. She asked if it was possible to compare sections in the same course. K. Larsen said that the only course this was done in was an Honors class, and it was small. The quick implementation of the pilot did not give enough time to plan for things like that. There was a mixture of majors-only and Gen Ed sections in both.
• F. Best thanked Dr. Larsen for the work that has been done and underscored how important this information is for the faculty.
• J. Sikorski asked: Question - Will faculty be recruited to teach these sections or will these assignments be made through our Department Chairs? In the past, faculty were recruited to fill these roles.
  • K. Kostelis said that she was hopeful we would have an FYE director in place. That person withdrew from the search after the background check. Efforts are still underway to hire a director, although on a temporary basis.
• K. Larsen indicated there is a narrative report to accompany the PowerPoint. As soon as it is finalized it will be submitted to the Provost.
• Sen. Crundwell requested to bring a motion to the floor, not about FYE:
  • MOTION: The Senate fully recognizes and supports Prof Wangari. We believe based upon her past teaching, her being tenured and promoted based on her load credit, research, and service within the Department, and area of expertise that she remain in the Educational Leadership, Policy and Instructional Technology Department. We implore the President to reconsider the rapid, unclear decision to move her out of the Educational Leadership, Policy, and Instructional Technology Department.
  Seconded by F. Best.
• Discussion:
  • F. Best expressed a concern about pedagogy. We have a tenured association professor with one specialty being asked to move to a new department where she will need to go on for promotion to full professor in a new discipline, where she would possibly be asked to teach new courses which would require considerable preparation. This may also impact her publications. I do have some concerns there and, given that she had been teaching in this area for so long and had no warning she would be getting moved, if her teaching evaluations, which have a certain validity, are not as good going forward as they have been, it could be perceived that she is not performing as well. Simultaneously, spending that much time preparing for a new area of expertise in pedagogical instruction, it can take so much time for prep and not allow much time for research. That is the concern I have.
  • B. Barr asked what Prof Gichiru thinks about this? W. Gichiru: I met with the President on January 6 and no one mentioned this until the day the report was released. I was blindsided and devastated. Since I was moved into Educational Leadership, it is all that I have taught. I have never taught in Secondary Education. I would like to continue in the department that I love. I am absolutely devastated about this.
  • J. Werblow added that not only was Dr. Gichiru not informed by the President when they met, none of the faculty in the department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Instructional Technology were informed that she was a part of the proposal. We have a proposal that was controversial in the first place, and then through the president’s “consultation process” no faculty were made aware that Dr. Gichiru was in the proposal. That seems strange. I do not support this new department myself, but also agree that it is unfair that Dr. Gichiru is included since she has not been teaching any of these courses. If the proposal is to rebuild Teacher Ed, why aren’t other faculty who were in Teacher Ed being moved back? This seems to be an act of retaliation.
  • Dr. Toro noted that he was not in every meeting she had with every member in his department. She stated she is as transparent as it comes and that him accusing her, without being in every meeting, is unfair.
  • Sen. Best indicated that his comment has nothing to do with Dr. Toro’s decision. His concern is from a pedagogical preparatory perspective in terms of this faculty member preparing herself for her next level of promotion. When you are developing another area of teaching, you don’t just open a book. You have to do a lot of work. He stated concern about how someone could properly prepare and how would that effect future research and publication.
  • Sen. Emeagwali said she has several concerns and hopes that the President of this University does not take this personally. She has general concerns about creation of departments like this. She said you have to be careful that marginalization of faculty that segregation practices are not inadvertently brought into being. This department is, as she understands it and can be corrected, largely made up of minorities. This idea of marginalization certainly concerns her. In any case, she fully supports G. Crundwell and Dr. Wangari in her view that she should not be part of the new department. It also seems that many of the participants in this new department are unwilling participants.
  • Z. Toro disputed the reference to “largely minority” and said that was inaccurate.
  • Sen. Halkin provided historical context: faculty have moved to new departments, but as far as she knows, in all cases it was at the faculty’s request.
  • The motion was put to a vote. F. Latour clarified that a vote of Yes means you support Sen. Crundwell’s motion. A vote of No means you do not. The vote was held and the Motion passed unanimously.

5. New Business

a. Presentation by President Toro on the current status of intercollegiate athletics

• Possible resolution

• The Athletics Program Sustainability Plan was developed in 2017 and it has nine points to it, including the fact that we are going to remain a D1 program. We were supposed to reduce sports programs from 18 to 16 and we were phasing in reductions of approximately $2M in our annual support of the program, mainly by reducing scholarships. We were going to require student athletes with full or partial scholarships to live on campus and in addition to that, we were supposed to develop a 5-year strategic plan, including that fundraising would be increasing significantly. We eliminated car allowances and speaker stipends from coaches and leadership. We were supposed to conduct and efficiency review and implement an interdisciplinary Advisory Committee Out of those things, only 2 things are still a work in progress:
  • Advisory Committee – This was done three years ago, but as we speak, the new Athletic Director (AD) is reviewing the committee membership and will reactivate it in the next few months.
  • The other thing that has not been done is the implementation of the Strategic Plan. The new AD is already working on that however, the Advisory Committee will have a key role to play in that, so completing this is dependent upon reappointing and reactivating the Advisory Committee.
• There is a reality here with the budget in Athletics In FY1718, we reduced the budget .5%. In FU1819 the budget increased because there were significant salary increases in personnel. However, last fiscal year, despite the fact that the Athletics Department did not receive the funding they usually get from the NCAA or guarantee games, we did reduce the budget over 1%. The budget in athletics cannot be reduced anymore because our salaries for most of the coaches and assistant coaches are out of control if we compare them to the salaries of their counterparts at peer institutions in our conference. That is the main reason operational expenses in Athletics cannot be reduced any more. I am more than willing to share a survey that was conducted by our Conference in which the salaries of our coaches and professional staff are compared with those in the Conference. The Senate did speak about the low salaries for our assistant coaches, but it you compare our current salaries with our peers, those that were considered low by the Senate a few months ago are well above those of our peers. The new leadership in Athletics is doing everything they can do get more savings and to increase the fundraising in such a way that the operation of the teams can be covered by external funding. That is the reality we have with our Athletics program. I invite Sal or Tom to add to this. And I am willing wo answer any questions you may have.
• Sen. Barr said he saw the proposed motion about the 5-year plan and has a question: he would like for any 5-year plan to consider student health. Health is something we have not talked about enough. He has a number of students who, unfortunately, almost every semester, are concussed with head injuries. This is something we need to keep track of, think of, and make public. I think it is beneficial to all of us to do this and I am finding it is harder and harder to countenance how many young Black males coming into his classroom are unable to complete assignments or be in the bright lights. Z. Toro thanked Sen. Barr for the recommendation.
• Sen. Crundwell asked: we have several interims, and they are expected to do strategic planning as an interim. Why did Athletics get a pass for 4 years because they had an interim? President Toro indicated there is more to the situation than we had an interim AD. The last 2 years have been completely different from an athletics standpoint. That has been part of the challenge we have faced. You are correct. We should have started working on the Strategic Plan some time ago, but COVID demands on Athletics have been like nothing else. If we think it was difficult for those in the classroom, it was very, very difficult for Athletics. You have a point, which I will not debate. Steve Villanti also indicated that three different people ran the Athletics program in the past 4 years.
• This Possible resolution was presented as a possible motion.
• F. Latour indicated that when this was written, it was not known that Dr. Toro would discuss the strategic plan in her presentation today.
• G. Crundwell moved for the resolution to be adopted with “at the conclusion of year 5” struck. Since it has been mentioned this planning is already underway, waiting another 5 years seems reckless. Fred clarified the section was a quote from the Report.
• Sen. Bishop said she sees Sen. Crundwell’s point and it make sense. She suggested adding another sentence rather than striking language. However, it was noted that the motion was already seconded by Sen. Sikorski.
• Sen. Crundwell noted that over the last 10 years, the budget went from $11M to $17M. If you want to wait 5 years, it could go from $17M to $23M. He is not willing, as a faculty member, to wait until the end of year 5 to give advice.
• Sen. Villanti said he does not find anything wrong with the current language. It is a 5-year plan. You need time to put it together and to measure success. He is in favor of it going forward as written.
• Sen. Best agreed with Sen. Villanti.
• F. Latour recapped the motion on the floor, which is to remove “then at the conclusion of year five”
• Sen. Duquette said this is not an issue on which he and Sen. Crundwell agree, but what Sen. Crundwell is asking for is a non-issue. It offers the Senate the flexibility to weigh in when it deems it to be useful.
• Sen. Villanti said he agreed with Sen. Duquette. He said you have to give the plan a chance to be carried out, and then evaluate it fairly. The resolution is being changed to leave it open to attack.
• Sen. Bishop highlighted the section that said “annual reviews will be required to ensure that profess is being made toward specific measures….” She thinks that addresses what Sen. Crundwell’s concerns.
• Sen. Crundwell reiterated that if the Senate has an advisory capacity on any issue, we should not say that we should not give advice for five years. He said Sen. Duquette is right; it does not change the 5-year plan at all.
• A motion to call the question was made. The motion to call the question passed.
• MOTION: To approve this statement, minus the words “then at the conclusion of year five”. Motion passed.

b. Department Merger Proposal (Art and Design to merge into a single Department of Art)

• Dean Wolff gave context: the departments of Art and Design had been working prior to the pandemic on the possibility of unifying. They took that step in the Spring of 2021. This memo is before the Senate to seek its advice and guidance. In practical terms, the reunification is underway, following the retirement of the chair of Design last summer.
• MOTION: The Faculty Senate recommends that the President approve the merger of the departments of Art and Design. Seconded by Sen. Foster.
• F. Latour asked about how will this be done? In particular, will steps be taken to ensure that department members seeing promotion will be able to rely on the P&T guidelines from their former department? R. Wolff said that the guidelines of the two departments are not that far apart in practical terms. The DEC in the unified department was able to evaluate their colleague and make a recommendation.
• F. Latour asked which bylaws will be used. The memo indicates that the Art Department’s bylaws will prevail. R. Wolff clarified that the Design department is asking to rejoin the Art the department.
• Sen. Crundwell asked if all faculty in both departments are in favor. R. Wolff said support is unanimous.
• Sen. Best stated that if all faculty want to move, this has his support.
• After no further discussion, the motion passed.

c. Other requests that were made to the Senate relating to the Educational Leadership, Policy, and Instructional Technology department

• F. Latour said that there are a few additional issues that have not yet been discussed on this matter. They had an issue with not having any department meetings this past semester. A committee was formed, two people appointed by the Senate and someone from HR. One of the recommendations that was made was for a mediator/parliamentarian to be appointed to help this department conduct its meetings. If anyone has skills in this area, they should contact Fred, who will take this to the next Steering Committee meeting.
• A. Suski-Lenczewski said that she was on the panel with Guy Crundwell and Steve Cohen and they did recognize the lack of meetings in the department. It was a recommendation that IF there was an ongoing problem, having a mediator/parliamentarian COULD be appointed. In other words, it is a conditional recommendation, predicated on whether there is a need.
• Sen. Crundwell said that the bylaws for the department were really bad, in general. There was no clear way to elect people. The committee felt that a representative of the Senate could be a shepherd to help the move forward. Suffice to say, if there are two departments, both our committee and the ad hoc committee suggested some faculty – either Union or Senate leadership – oversee the construction of the new bylaws. In the President’s report is said the dean should not oversee this process, but I went on record against this since it was the dean that was violating the bylaws.
• Fred recapped what he thought Sen. Crundwell was saying: that the process of creating the bylaws for the unified department would be overseen by representatives of the Union and the Senate to make sure it takes into account the interest of all of the affected faculty.
• Sen. Crundwell made the following motion: Based on the past issues and reports of the two ad hoc committees, the Senate recommends that a Union representative and a representative of the Senate be present when these departments formulate their bylaws.
• President Toro asked what will happen if a majority of one of the departments refuse to have someone from the University or Senate refuse to have someone help them.
• Sen. Crundwell said ultimately, he feels, faculty want to work in a department where they feel respected and listened to and can come to a consensus. What’s happened to date – not letting them meet and ignoring that - has not provided that. Let’s try another approach. This may be a better path than relying on fiat by the dean and a chair.
• President Toro said she was told by a faculty member that if someone wants different bylaws, they can go to a different department, because they are not changing the bylaws.
• T. Burkholder said any bylaws revision is reviewed by the Union to make sure they are not in conflict with the contract. No matter what else happens, all bylaws revisions go through the Union. He agrees with the assessment of the Senate committee that these bylaws are in serious need of work to resolve internal conflicts in the department. If the department wants to continue to have these types of issues, that’s fine, but I would be shocked if, after having an external review of their bylaws, they didn’t want to. R. Smith has worked extensively on bylaws revision. At the end of the day, the department faculty have to approve their bylaws. No external help is going to change that.
• Fred reminded the Senate we are still debating Sen. Crundwell’s motion.
• Sen. Crundwell presented his motion in the chat: The Senate recommends that a Union representative and a Senate representative assist the two departments formulate their by-laws.
• Sen. Bishop sought clarity: if we pass the Sen. Crundwell’s resolution, can the Senate require it or is it up to the department?
• F. Latour said the only people officially involved in approving bylaws are the department faculty and the dean. If the department refuses help, no one can force them to take help.
• Sen. Crundwell said that the President’s report says that the two departments will work on their bylaws and they will be overseen by the Dean. My recommendation says that representatives of the Union and Senate assist as well. It does not conflict with the President’s report. The Dean can still oversee it, but there will be two other observers, helpers in the room. Other issues, like election of coordinators, may come up, and that would be a good role for the Union and Senate reps. They will be there as a resource.
• K. Martin asked that if the AAUP reviews bylaws, why weren’t problems found with the current bylaws. T. Burkholder said that the review is only to find conflicts with the contract. He said that now that all the bylaws are posted on the Senate site, the departments should look at the examples there and steal the good stuff.
• Sen. Al-Masoud asked: what will be the role of those monitors? Advisory? Can they participate in drafting or correcting the bylaws? Eventually the bylaws will go to the Union for feedback, so what is the function of the monitors? F. Latour said it is purely advisory, to be at the service to assist the faculty in the department. N. Al-Masoud asked if this is something that will happen in all cases. G. Crundwell said this is a special case and two different committees came to the same conclusion/recommendation.
• Hearing no further discussion, a vote was taken on the following motion: The Senate recommends that a Union representative and a Senate representative assist the two Departments formulate their by-laws. The motion passed.
• Sen. Crundwell recalled that Sen. Blitz had requested a list of faculty who had retired and been hired. F. Latour indicated he has received a list of people who have retired. He asked the CHRO if he could make the list public and she said yes. A. Suski-Lenczewski also indicated that, depending on COVID, the University plans to have an event for those retiring this year. G. Crundwell also asked about new hires.
• Sen. Bray commented on the last agenda item: she proposed that the ad hoc committee’s report be listed as a separate document, rather than embedded in President Toro’s report. F. Latour indicated that he would do so.

6. Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned at 5:34pm.