Faculty Senate

Minutes - April 18, 2022 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

1. Minutes

a. Minutes of April 4, 2022 and April 18, 2022.

2. Announcements

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

• Last Chapter Chat of the academic year is tomorrow.
• Longevity pay will be included in the last paycheck in April

b. SUOAF-AFSCME

• No announcements.

c. SGA (N. Elsinger)

• Resolution for free menstrual products passed unanimously by SGA. Now looking into funding. These products are a necessity not a luxury and are not presently covered by SNAP.
• Motion by Latour for Faculty Senate to support the SGA motion. (Passed)
• Elsinger was complimented on her service (S. Halkin) and receipt of the President’s Citation.

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

• No announcements.

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• Faculty Day will be on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, 3:00 - 6:15 pm. This will include the Excellence in Teaching Awards. It is recommended that attendees RSVP due to the size of the room.
• Commencement is on May 14. Still looking for faculty to participate.

3. Elections

a. Election of Standing Committees of the Faculty elected by the Senate

• Usually a paper ballot but this year an electronic ballot will be sent to all Faculty Senate members. There will be a separate ballot to the whole faculty for the proposed amendments to the Faculty Senate Constitution.

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)

a. University Athletics Board (P. Resetarits)

• P. Resetarits discussed the report and pointed out that athletes are now allowed to transfer one time without having to sit out a year so there is no longer a need for appeals. This has resulted in quite a bit of movement in Division 1 basketball.
• G. Crundwell asked if any rosters were extended due to Covid. Answer: a few students. Do transfers have to tell you they are leaving? Answer: yes
• G. Crundwell asked for a clarification: "The committee agreed that the strategic plan for CCSU may not look like many other strategic plans based on the uniqueness of CCSU." He would like to know what are the elements of uniqueness mentioned in the above sentence when it comes to the athletics strategic plan.
• B. Barr raised concern about the rate of concussions among student athletes and systemic impact on class (delays in work, dropping classes). Asked for a concussion report and that the institutions decide a position. P. Resetarits agreed, on behalf of UAB, to provide a report in 1 year.
• G. Crundwell stated concern about suicides and how concussions are monitored. T. Pincince (athletic director) replied that athletes are monitored by team coaches, athletic trainers, physicians, and that a protocol is in place that includes a gradual return to play when cleared to do so. P. Resetarits added that baseline data is collected and then follow up data collected and reported to the NEC.
• P. Resetarits thanked by T. Pincince for 15 years of service as faculty representative to the UAB. K. Bantley will be the new faculty representative.
• Report accepted by the Senate.

b. Promotion and Tenure Committee (M. Jackson and C. King)

• C. King thanked committee, her last year as co-chair
• Clarification: only the number of applications for promotion and tenure are provided by race and ethnicity each year; the number of approved candidates is provided every 5 years with the next report due in 2026. This practice prevents low annual numbers from potentially allowing individual candidate identification (F. Latour).
• Five recommendations put forward with a request to handle them right away in the fall (C. King).
• Motion to endorse the 1st, 4th, and 5th recommendations (P. Foster, 2nd F. Best)
• Software discussion.
• Query as to the cost of the software (A. Bray). Estimate of $7,000-$10,000 (G. Claffey).
• Being piloted this summer. Kim Meyer and Tina Rivera have done a lot of work on it; set up in TEAMS; plan to do mock submissions this summer - could use a couple of recent re-evaluations to check the flow of documents; software should help the flow of documents and eliminate the “manila folder” (T. Burkholder).
• Who is mentoring new faculty (F. Best)? C. King responded that it varies by department; some do well, others do not, hardship DECs concern for accountability; hesitates to ask that all departments do the same thing, instead encourages communication.
• Will summer submissions be done the old way? Offered to put her 6-year review in Interfolio software this summer with concern of having to do it quickly in the fall (C. Andreoletti). T. Burkholder responded: not yet and that fall submissions if using Interfolio will hopefully be an easy drag and drop procedure. Once the pilot is run, information and workshops will be shared. M. Jackson added that OneDrive is horrendous from a candidate point of view; this should be better.
• Should hyperlinks be used or just PDFs (C. Andreoletti)? T. Burkholder responded: yes to hyperlinks to external sources such as YouTube, but no to hyperlinks to OneDrive.
• Motion to endorse recommendations 1, 4, and 5 Passed (unanimously)

c. Academic Standards Committee (E. Leonidas)

• Request for rationale for lowering the SoB admissions requirement from a GPA of 2.5 to 2.0 (F. Best). J. Farhat responded that it would allow GPA entry and exit requirements to align with accreditations standards and be inline with peer institutions (right now CCSU is the highest) and that there would be no change in course rigor.
• Report approved (unanimously)

d. University Planning and Budget Committee (A. Bray)

• Report accepted by the Senate

e. Curriculum Committee (N. Moore)

• Proposal from FIRC about revised General Education Learning Outcomes for the Community Colleges (relevant for us in terms of TAP)
• Presentation of the New Proposed TAP Framework30 Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
• Comparison of existing TAP Framework30 SLOs and New Proposed TAP Framework30 SLOs

• The proposal from FIRC about revised General Education Learning Outcomes for the Community Colleges is relevant to CCSU because of the Transfer Articulation Process (TAP) between CCSU and the Community Colleges. Revision of the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) has been a 2 year process involving faculty and disciplinary groups from across the system. The proposed SLOs need to be voted on and reported by the end of May (therefore by the Faculty Senate at this meeting). There is no mechanism for an extension of the deadline. If an SLO is voted against, a written rationale must accompany the “no vote” or the “no” will be disregarded. If a set of revised SLOs is not approved (17 institutions), FIRC will go forward with the existing SLO set it had intended to replace.
• After a “no” vote at the General Education level, English and Biology department withdrew concerns related to respective domains, and voted to approve them at the main meeting. Math continued to object to the Quantitative Reasoning SLOs and provided a written rationale.
• The entire slate was approved by the full Curriculum Committee.
• Motion to divide the question separating out the SLOs from the rest of the Curriculum Consent Agenda (passed, none opposed)
• Motion to accept the Curriculum consent agenda w/the exclusion of the SLOs (passed, unanimous)
• Motion to approve the following 6 sets of SLOs: Oral Communication, Historical Knowledge and Understanding, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Continuing Learning/Information Literacy, and Scientific Reasoning.
• Discussion:
  • S. Halkin spoke against approving the Scientific Reasoning SLOs on behalf of the Biology Department, citing the exclusion of language about testable hypotheses in the new SLO #1, the negative implications of using “or” instead of “and” in SLO #2 as all skills are deemed necessary and the concern that SLO #3 buries the evaluation step instead of specifying that both accuracy and reasonableness of data need to be assessed; if data are not accurate or seem highly unlikely, there should be no attempt at using them to reach reasonable or logical conclusions. Condensing to fewer SLOs doesn’t provide the type of guidance needed.
  • S. Cox pointed to language in SLO #3 that speaks to the processes involved in testing hypotheses. S. Halkin reiterated the need to explicitly state it.
  • S. Cox: If expert in the field, you will know how to lead the student through the process. Reason for the new learning objectives went through years of assessment and determined what is actually being stated out in that learning objective and vs what is coming out in that process. And the fact that they can put things into a more condensed format because students are already grasping those processes. If can do that work, move them on.
  • N. Moore: Noted that we are missing rubrics that will hopefully fill in more of the steps. Not done yet.
  • J. Mulrooney: Putting assessment hat on... what is the actual impact on CCSU? Agree revised objectives are dreadful for assessment. These are for the Community Colleges; not something we are not forced to adopt.
  • F. Latour: We are not forced to adopt them, however, these LO could be used by curriculum at the CC to design courses that do not adequately prepare students for coursework here. Also with TAP, it impacts us indirectly.
  • S. Cox: Students are going to transfer here and will be integrated with CCSU students - if arriving with a different preparation, it is a legitimate concern - want to make sure that they “fit-in”.
  • V. Savatorova: Concern that the proposed language will diminish the students’ learning and potentially impact their ability to be successful.
  • F. Best: Concerned about CC students arriving with deficits that result in additional semesters when they arrive as Juniors.
  • P. Foster: Wondered if testing hypotheses was considered in the SLOs for the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
• Motion to separate Scientific Reasoning from the other 5 SLOs being discussed: Passed (unanimous)
• Motion to approve the remaining five sets of SLOs: Oral Communication, Historical Knowledge and Understanding, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Continuing Learning/Information Literacy: Motion passed (1 opposed, multiple abstentions)
• Motion to approve the SLO set for Scientific Reasoning.
• Discussion
  • C. Andreolleti: If we approve to change all of these, will it really change how people teach their courses in the real world and the community colleges? Understands concerns but doesn't think it will change how people teach.
  • F. Latour: Does not impact how you teach the course but may impact the design of a course which happens at the curriculum level.
  • R. Smith: has concern for programs where there is a lot of progression; if water-downed early and arrive here not as capable/prepared for the next step; don’t want more students discouraged and add to retention issues.
  • N. Moore: That is a really good concern. More of an issue for general ed than those in engineering major where it is very specific what they must take.
  • Piggybacking on Ned’s comment... because the TAP and transfer ticket agreements go beyond Framework 30, what would have been fine for Framework 30 alone but doesn’t work if you want to be a part of the 2-year TAP agreement (ex. you may need a higher level of math or science). TAP usurps Framework 30.
  • S. Halkin: With introductory biology courses, transfer students are often asking to use their CC courses to count toward the major.
• Motion failed (8 yes, 11 opposed, multiple abstentions). S.Cox reminder to provide written rebuttals to her by the end of the week so she has them for meeting on the 13th.
• Motion to approve SLO set for Scientific Knowledge and Understanding
Discussion
• S. Halkin upon clarification concerning lecture and labs withdrew her objection for this SLO set.
• G. Crundwell asked if the old #3 was incorporated in the new SLOs. Answer (M. Jackson, L. Latour) is that it is incorporated in the new #1.
• Motion passed (approved, 1 opposition, multiple abstentions)
• Motion to approve SLO set for Written Communication
• Discussion
  • S. Halkin: new SLO’s don’t indicate when citing sources what is meant by “ethical”, “appropriate document”, and “credible source”. This is more information in the original SLOs.
  • P. Foster: Will the rubrics go through the same review process?
  • S. Cox: For the rubrics, that is next year's goal with the belief that this year’s goal will be accomplished. Yes, to the best of my knowledge is to get feedback along the way.
  • P. Foster: So the goal here is to reduce the number of bullet points.
  • S. Cox: I hate to say it that way. I understand why it sounds that way. The faculty members know how to flesh these things out to meet what the student needs so that we don’t have to dictate to them everything they should do for 16 weeks.
  • A. Bray: one of the challenges is that it might help some faculty, such as adjunct faculty that don’t have as much experience to actually have things fleshed out, having more direction to help our adjuncts even at the CC. level is extremely important. There needs to be some level of consistency in SLOs and if that level isn’t provided in the SLOs, they are given very little guidance on how to guide their students. Reduces the possibility of accountability.
• Motion passed (22 yes, 3 opposed)
• Motion to approve SLO set for Quantitative Reasoning (QR)
• Discussion:
• V. Savatorova: lack of analysis and application, students who are not majors still need to function socially and get jobs
• N. Moore: strongly object to arithmetic (by itself) counting. The intent was that the “or” is inclusive according to SCSU linguist but that isn’t the way I read it.
• F. Best: The key is that you can take either algebra, arithmetic, geometry, statistics, or logic so its not exclusive to arithmetic.
• F. Latour: But the concern is that because it is an “or” you can satisfy the LO if you arithmetic even if you have no algebra, geometry, statistics or logic. Or only requires one of them to be true. And requires all of them to be true.
• G. Crundwell: Questioned the meaning of logic as used; F. Latour: Maybe we should add the word “formal” to logic.
• Don’t like the word “or” either.
• Not one class meets all of these things so the “or” allows for flexibility. Passing this I don’t think people will learn the math that they need for coming to CCSU.
• F. Latour: The problem is not the “or” it is including arithmetic as one of the options.
• Algebra includes a lot of arithmetic so could just strike arithmetic.
• Motion is more general. Could vote it down and make a recommendation to strike arithmetic.
• K. Santoro: These are general education classes; do want our graduates to have a minimum of quantitative reasoning, so in addition to the or and the arithmetic and words, we want them to be able to show reasoning so we were a little disappointed so maybe could be reworded. They also eliminated the novel problems. Correct me if wrong, but one of the guidelines was to reduce them (SLOs) to 2 or 3 bullet points. So these may be the result of trying to reduce the number of bullet points.
• S. Cox: Came out as the result of the assessment that when revising was to happen that it would be a reduction. But also to not dictate.
• S. Cox: Call for trust from CC colleagues; they want their students to be successful. Otherwise students will return with complaint they weren’t prepared. Also doesn’t believe lack of preparation is limited to CC, happens everywhere.
• R. Kalder: There is a common core state standards for grades K-12 and it is much more than what we have in front of us. What is being proposed is that we don’t care what was expected in HS, we are expecting a lot less when they go to college. And I think that’s a travesty.
• Motion failed (0 yes, 24 opposed)
• Sharon Cox thanked for a lot of hard work. (F. Latour).

f. Graduate Studies Committee (L. Jacobson)

• Report accepted (unanimously)

g. Task Force on College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (K. Bantley)

• Have had 2 meetings, DPT, MSW, English (certification).
• May 13 meeting about models.
• Will be meeting over the summer and will report to Faculty Senate at the first meeting in the fall.

h. Committee on Equity, Justice, and Inclusion (K. Love)*

• Report accepted as part of consent agenda

i. Information Technology Committee (K. Meyer)*

• Report accepted as part of consent agenda

j. International Education Committee (L. Zidani-Eroglu)*

• Report accepted as part of consent agenda

k. Online Learning Committee (P. Hapeman)*

• Report accepted as part of consent agenda

l. Student Affairs Committee (J. Hansen)*

• Report accepted as part of consent agenda

5. Unfinished Business

a. Constitution and Bylaws Committee

• Current status and context for the items
• Motion to vote by secret ballot (passed, 3 opposed)
• Motion to add the following language to article 2.2 (decision making authority) of the Senate Constitution, “and academic advising within an academic program.” If approved by the Faculty Senate it will proceed to a vote of the full faculty and then to President Toro.
• Discussion:
  • B. Merenstein: Asked if the chair of the Committee on Academic Advising (CAA) was present.
  • F. Latour indicated he had received a written statement from the Chair of the CAA stating the committee’s opposition to the motion. He read the statement aloud.
  • G. Crundwell: Was the CAA in favor of the original wording?
  • F. Latour: They did not say.
  • S. Villanti?: Indicated the VP had commented that some problems with the original language. New language sets some boundaries; the original set no boundaries.
  • B. Merenstein: CAA would have to have another meeting to discuss the original language.
  • B. Merenstein: asked for clarification on exactly what people are voting on.
  • F. Latour: The proposal on the floor to add “academic advising within the academic program” to the decision making authority of the faculty senate in the Senate Constitution.
  • B. Merenstein: asked if approving that to take it back to our departments for discussion.
  • F. Latour: No, will go to ballot for the entire faculty as a whole, then if approved to President Toro for approval or disapproval.
  • B. Merenstein: Important to note that the CAA is opposed to this language and SUOAF is opposed to adding decision-making authority. Deserves more discussion.
  • G. Crundwell: Has been discussed for 3 meetings.
  • B. Merenstein: Clarified that the CAA has not had a chance to discuss this - the committee that would be charged with carrying it out. CAA should have the opportunity to discuss further.
  • G. Crundwell: reiterated levels of discussion
  • F. Latour: Presumably the committee is saying, “we like the work we are doing.” Do we (faculty senate) want the committee (CAA) to continue doing what they are doing, or do something else?
  • C. Andreoletti - spoke against the motion- swayed by the fact that the Committee on Academic Advising and SUOAF are against it.
  • F. Best: Concerned that there is concern. Asked for more information from B. Merenstein as a member of the CAA about what the CAA is concerned about.
  • B. Merenstein: They were very opposed to that language being in there and they ought to have that opportunity to discuss it more.
  • G. Crundwell: Where does advising fit? Where does decision-making authority belong? …found a home for program assessment and external program reviews. I think it belongs with the faculty.
  • F. Best: Don’t wish to make the committee invisible. Can you articulate in more detail what the concerns were?
  • B. Merenstein: Two main reasons expressed by the CAA were that they felt “decision-making authority” very broad and concerned what that actually means and they are very respectful of their colleagues (professional advisors) whom they have faith in them, they were hired to do the job and that it is also a SUOAF issue.
  • S. Villanti: SUOAF is against the wording concerning authority decision-making.
  • G. Crundwell: asked Villante if against decision-making authority in admissions as that also involves SUOAF individuals.
  • S. Villanti: noted that is not what we are discussing; could be on another day
  • G. Crundwell: asked for the Senate Constitution to be displayed, Article 2.2. The Faculty Senate has decision-making authority in such areas as curriculum matters, degree requirements, scholastic standards, academic freedom, admission policies, and student behavior. Crundwell then asked if we were going to go through and get rid of all of them except recruitment? Addressed the idea that there is a feeling that the FS will start rewriting or violate people’s contracts (SUOAF) and that has been discussed for 3 months. There is this idea that with advising the FS will be nefarious. Worked with J. Decat who is in charge of bylaws and constitution before putting the motion forward. Expressed that there are checks and balances in place.
  • Z. Toro: Strongly disagree with the argument. Gave the example of the FS deciding the professional advisor has no role in advising which FS can do if it has decision-making authority. This goes against the contracts. The very real example, would force me to not approve it. Different from admissions where the only thing the FS does is establish criteria.
  • F. Best: Want Beth Merenstein to have opportunity to articulate her concern and perceptions of the CAA.
  • R. Wolff: We are faced with a lot of challenges (going to take of my Dean’s hat for a moment) One of the things most concerning about this discussion is that our colleagues in the other principle bargaining unit (SUOAF) are saying they oppose this completely. To pass this is to say that their professional opinion does not matter. I’m not saying we couldn’t hold longer conversations and reach some kind of agreement with our colleagues. But I am asking to please be sensitive to that decision. That is a big step. We are only going to succeed if we work together.
  • C. Andreoletti: I would like to see it added to the advisory capacity. I think we should have a voice in advising; I’ve served on that committee. The committee was sometimes ignored so maybe advisory would be less ignored. I think it needs to be somewhere but I don’t think it has to be “decision-making.”
  • F. Latour: There is not need to add it to anything because there is a catch-all “all other matters affecting the educational quality and mission of the university” so we have at least an advisory capacity with regard to advising.The question is do we want to say we have decision-making authority.
  • P. Foster: Are we making any distinction between initial advising and advising for the major?
  • F. Latour: That was the point of the amendment last time. We added the words “advising within the academic program.”
  • F. Best: I certainly do hear Dr. Wolff’s concern defending out colleagues. Believe in inclusion, everyone has the right to say what they believe. Also concerned with what Dr. Toro has to say in context of making sure people can accomplish their jobs…find a unifying goal while understanding what is feasible.
  • L. Whittemore: Ask if we have talked about using the word policy, how we do in admissions instead of just academic advising. As a whole is it the policies of academic advising or is it bigger than that?
  • F. Latour: The implication is that it is policy, but it was not made explicit in the proposal from last time, because the committee doesn’t do advising itself; the advisors on the committee do advising.
  • F. Best: Dr. Toro is there anyway this can work in your opinion? What would you propose we do?
  • R. Smith called the question
  • Motion on calling question approved.
  • Motion on faculty having decision-making authority for advising concerning advising, failed (12 yes, 23 no)
  b. 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"
  • Motion to accept the 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”
  • Discussion:
    • President Latour shared two opinions sent to him via email
    • Committee on Academic Advising - opposed to the amendment
    • President of SUOAF, L. Bigelow - in favor of the proposed amendment; S. Vallenti believes she is speaking for self, not union
    • G. Crundwell is opposed to new language, in favor of original Committee on Committees’ proposed language
    • B. Merenstein restated that the Academic Advising Committee is opposed to the amendment
    • Motion failed (1 yes, many opposed)
    • Motion to end the discussion (approved)
    • Motion to approve the Committee on Academic Advising bylaws (passed)
  c. Proposed Policy on Emeritus Status (R. Smith)

• Motion to accept the newly revised: Recommendations for Clarity in Department and Supervisory Recognition of Emeritus Status
• R. Smith: Ad hoc committee took out language about full- and part-time because we don’t know what the contract will say; using “contractually eligible” instead. Took out the 7 years. Robin was asked to take to HR and has meeting with Daniel Mooreland tomorrow to discuss items that are solely recommendations.
• F. Latour: Dan Moreland is here and confirms. Voting on the top section. Comes from a committee so does not require a second.
• A. Suski-Lenczewski: Concerns: (1) adding a timeline, paragraph 1, for requesting emeritus status where currently there is no timeline. In the past, some have asked after 1 year. (2) Paragraph 4 is not accurate. No “approval” comes from the has Academic departments, it’s a recommendation of the department, dean and provost and approved by the President. SUOAF there is no language that it comes out of the department. Just says awarded by BOR upon recommendation of the President.
• R. Smith: Clarified that there is no timeline on post-hummus. Offered to make friendly amendments. on timeline. The SUOAF existing contract given her by L. Bigelow says supervisor sends recommnendation to the President.
• F. Latour: Read aloud 15.9 language. No mention of supervisor sending recommendation.
• R. Smith: Acknowledged no contract language there about supervisors; misunderstanding likley due to ongoing informal practice of supervisor’s making recommendations. Made change in wording in paragraph 4.
• A. Suski-Lenczewski: Not clear why we need Faculty Senate language when we have contract language?
• F. Latour: There is contract language but doesn’t indicate how the department should do it. As a result departments do different things. Forty departments that may do things in different ways.
• S. Villanti: Stated that even though there is no contract language, department supervisor’s recommend emeritus. Looking for a way to narrow it down as to how to do it since contract doesn’t say.
• T. Burkholder: In last paragraph, take out “and/or supervisor’s “vote”; as they just “act.” The real problem is that proposals aren’t acted on promptly - at different levels.
• R. Smith: Clarified that departments do “vote”.
• A. Suski-Lenczewski: Shouldn’t that be in departments’ by-laws.
• R. Smith: It should be but isn’t.
• F. Latour: If not, adding it to 40 department’s by-laws would take a lot of time.
• S. Halkin: Concern about timeline of losing email access while waiting for emeritus status.
• R. Smith: That is beyond the power of the Faculty Senate.
• S. Halkin: Add wording to indicate that it can be considered “prior to”
• F. Latour: Request for summary of proposals.
• Motion to refer entire package back to the ad hoc committee (passed, unanimous)

6. New Business

b. Approval of Spring and Summer 2022 candidates for graduation

• Approved unanimously

7. Adjournment

3. Elections

a. Reminder - Call for Nominations: Standing Committees of the Faculty

• The Elections Committee is in the process of conducting elections for the various committees of the Senate. Well over 70 nominations have been received; 95 very specific nominations are needed to have a full slate. The Elections Committee will reopen the call if there are not enough candidates to complete the election. F. Latour asked Senators in attendance to consider self-nominating or nominate a colleague (preferably with their consent.)
• J. Duquette asked if one could see what nominations have been made for what committee(s) and what committees still have needs.
• F. Latour said that the last call will include only the committees that still need nominees. The slate of nominees will be announced after the last call for nominees.
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)

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 5:30pm.