Faculty Senate

Minutes - November 15, 2021 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Acharya, K.; Amaya, L.; Atkinson, S.; Barr, B.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Crundwell, G.; Donohue, P.; Drew, S.; Duquette, M.; Elfant, A.; Emeagwali, G.; Evns, M.; Farrish, K.; Foster, P.; French, J.; Gamache, J.; Garbovskiy, Y.; Garcia-Bowen, M.; Gardner, P.; Gichiru, W.; Givens, E.; Gonzalez, K.; Gu, S.; Halkin, S.; Hedlund, J.; Hernandez, J.; Huang, Y.; Jackson, M.; Jarmoszko, T.; Karas, R.; Kean, K.; King, A.; Kreeger, J.; Kumar, R.; Langevin, K.; Larsen, K.; Lewis, M.; Liu, R.; Martin, A.; McCarthy, M.; Morano, P.; O’Connor, J.; Ofray, J.; Orange, M.; Paolino, J.; Roark, E.; Robinson, G.; Salama, T.; Salgado, E.; Savatorova, V.; Schenck, S.; Scott, T.; Sikorski, J.; Small. I.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Sylvester, C.; Tafrate, L.; Thai, N.; Vargas, C.; Villanti, S.; Washko, L.; Whittemore, L.. Zadi, S.

Ex-Officio:Burkholder, T.; Farhat, J.; Jarrett, J.; Kostelis, K.; Mulrooney, J.; Wolff, R.

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Barriteau-Phaire, C.; Choudhery, A.; Cintorino, S.; Elsinger, N.; Fallon, M.; Kara-Soteriou, J.; Love, K.; Lueken, C.’ Martin, K.; McGrath, K.; Medina, X.; Miller, S.; Paige, J.; Palmer, J.; Parady, K.; Pearson, A.F.; Pope, C.; Resetarits, P.; Tobon, B.; Tucker, P.; Tully, J.

1. Minutes

• Minutes of November 1, 2021

Minutes of November 1, 2021 were approved without change.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

• T. Burkholder extended gratitude to everyone who showed up for today’s rally. It was a tremendous success. There were about 250 people there at its peak. He also expressed appreciation to everyone who came into the meeting with President Cheng. The meetings gave him a better sense of how the faculty is feeling.
• Negotiations Update – Both sides have been reviewing all the things that are still up for discussion. There is a relatively small number of items that we disagree on that may end up in arbitration, but neither side has formally given up all their proposals. Within the next couple of weeks, we will have a better sense of where this is heading. Having private meetings with the principals and their lawyers were very difficult, but overall the meetings were helpful.
• SEBAC met with the Governor’s Office. There was an initial meeting, which went poorly. They came back with a serious offer (e.g., $1500 lump sum in Year 1, and 2.5%, which for AAUP translates for 4.5% for the remaining years.) SEBAC has a good counter to propose, and that is where we stand.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (L. Bigelow)

• No announcements.

c. SGA (N. Elsinger)

• AAUP is to be commended for how well the rally went today. Students were glad to be invited and involved and many have asked follow-up questions.
• Student Government has been working on a brief survey to gauge how students are doing and how the transition to on-ground classes has been going. It should be finalized this Wednesday. The SGA is also asking faculty to provide any information about student performance/engagement/behavior/attendance that may complement the survey responses.
• J. Bishop asked Nicole to encourage students to speak with their faculty because all too frequently, they don’t talk with the faculty until it is too late.
• A. King noted that she has noticed extremely irregular attendance.

d. FAC to the Board of Regents (D. Blitz)

• Compliments to the faculty who presented their concerns and hopes in such a firm and convincing way, not just on contract negotiations, but also on curriculum matters and other issues.
• The first joint meeting of the BOR and FAC was last week and it was at the initiative of the FAC. We have been asking for it for two years. It was a one-hour meeting that dealt with two issues: faculty expressed concerns about the ACME proposal and the transfer articulations were discussed. The latter was presented from the System Office perspective. Further joint meetings are planned.
• President Cheng’s email to the campus community on November 1 mentioned three issue which need to be highlighted: (1) decrease the number of students who have not attested to their vaccination status; (2) decrease the number of non-medical exemptions; and (3) continue to impose consequences for non-compliance. Moreover, he indicated in this email that implementation of these policies would be decentralized. This means it is up to us at Central as to how we will deal with non-medical exemptions (which were granted without reason or question) and the number of students who are non-compliant (e.g., those who do not attest or respond or those who have been granted exemptions but have not tested as required.) D. Blitz asked for the Senate Steering Committee to meet in the coming week to discuss these issues and how they will be addressed in Spring 2022. He feels we need to have this discussion, and we need to have it quickly. Further discussion of this issue is covered in agenda item 4b.

e. University Ombudsperson (J. Paige)

• Dr. Paige invited everyone to review the brochure that was shared with the agenda. He has been serving in this role since the beginning of September. He now works independently of all other university divisions. Within the scope of ombudsperson services is interpersonal conflict and policy review. Most of the work is informal, but as circumstances warrant some situations may need to be referred to formal processes.
• T. Burkholder asked whether the advisory committee to the Ombudsperson has been formed and what role it has. R. Wolff indicated that there is some discussion that the search committee be converted into the advisory committee to help serve the Ombudsman and guide his work. T. Burkholder noted that in the past, there has not always been resolution of issues brought to the Ombudsman Office and that he looks forward to having the role better defined.

f. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• The policy on Department Chair Selection that is found in the Faculty Handbook was presented and reviewed. He described that this situation did happen this year in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Instructional Technology, and that the Senate must create an ad hoc committee to do what is specified in the Department Chair Selection policy. He sought volunteers interested in serving on the ad hoc committee. Anyone interested should email him to express interest. The policy is vague in terms of who can be on the ad hoc committee. Though it says that the Senate shall convene the committee, it is not proscriptive in terms of who can serve (e.g., it does not state that committee members shall be Senators.) It is implied that committee members should be comprised of AAUP members only and not include faculty from the affected department.
• The Parliamentarian stated that the rules we have gives the Senate the right to let the Senate president appoint the committee or have the Senate select a committee.
• The committee is charged with conducting a review, so it is implied that the committee would have to seek out the reason that the President did not appoint a chair.
• The timeline is two months, rounded to the nearest Senate meeting. If the Senate must review the recommendation, it would be on the agenda for the following Senate meeting. The working deadline for the committee to conclude its work is January 9 or 10. The goal would be to have a report ready for the first Senate meeting of the Spring semester on January 31, 2022.
• Fred asked for the assistance of the Vice President of the Senate and the understanding of the Senate Steering Committee as he attends to a personal matter in the coming week.

3. Committee Reports (reports marked with an asterisk are informational reports intended for consent agenda only; if you would like a report to be discussed, please inform the President and Secretary by Monday, noon)  

a. CCSU Foundation Grant Advisory Committee (B. Lopez)*

• The informational report of the CCSU Foundation Grant Advisory Committee was accepted.

4. New Business

a. DEC Exception for Department of Theatre

• F. Latour reviewed the request for a DEC exception for the Department of Theatre.
• MOTION: To approve the DEC exception for the Theatre Department. Motion passed.

b. Creation of Ad Hoc Committee on Spring 2022 COVID Campus Protocols: Vaccination Exemption Criteria, Non-Compliance Enforcement, and Health Awareness Educational Campaign (D. Blitz)

• e-mail from CSCU President Cheng
• Proposed slideshow

• D. Blitz explained his rationale for requesting that an ad hoc committee be convened to recommend COVID campus protocols for the Spring 2022 semester. He presented four related issues that need to be addressed: Non-medical exemptions; non-compliance (testing and reporting); booster shots and an educational campaign. He suggested a small group be formed and that he was willing to serve and convene the group.
• MOTION: To form an ad hoc committee consisting of David Blitz, Mark Jackson, one SUOAF member, one AAUP member, David Blitz, a faculty member from Nursing, Sylvia Halkin, one member of management and Nicole Elsinger, representing students. Motion passed.

c. Financial Transparency at the University

• Resolution Concerning the Reporting of the Amount of Student Monies taken from the University General Fund to Cover the Athletics Budget (G. Crundwell)
• Sen. Crundwell outlined his proposed resolution. He noted that a majority of our peers have an athletics fee. He is not proposing we go that far but is seeking that we calculate and communicate to students how much the cost of the athletics program is on a per capita basis.
• MOTION: To approve the Resolution Concerning the Reporting of the amount of Student Monies taken from the University General Fund to Cover the Athletics Budget (Crundwell). Motion was seconded by Sen. Foster.
• Discussion:
  • Sen. Foster asked if it would cost the university something to calculate and publicize this information. G. Crundwell opined that undertaking this effort would not have a cost associated with it.
  • Sen. Villanti pointed out that the University already makes this information available on the Business Services website. He pointed out that the majority of the costs of the athletic program are salaries and fringe benefits of unionized employees and the second highest cost is scholarships, which are returned to the university in the form of tuition and housing fees. He also noted that the Athletics department brings in over $1M in revenue annually. He asked why this is being requested of only athletics and suggested that other areas of the university be examined as well.
  • Sen. Crundwell pointed out that the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs Productivity calculates costs of academic programs at the university, but not the athletics program.
  • A request was made to have time to bring this back to the department for discussion. F. Latour outlined the process of making a motion to postpone.
  • Sen. Villanti asked about how to amend the proposal and F. Latour outlined the process for making a motion to amend.
  • Sen. Villanti made a motion to amend to increase the number of cost centers to be examined. F. Latour informed Sen. Villanti that precise language would need to be presented in a motion to amend. Sen. Villanti recanted, in favor of a motion to postpone the agenda item to allow time for a formal amendment to be prepared.
  • Vice President Bishop asked for clarification of what is being asked in the Resolution. Is it a calculation of what percentage of their tuition and student fees are being devoted to support athletics. Sen. Crundwell responded to concerns about "targeting athletics" by providing background information, including the Knight Foundation report, which stated that the spending per FTE athlete grows much faster than the spending per FTE student in the classroom, and recommended that how much tuition and fees goes to support athletics should be made available to students, as well as his 2012 motion at the UPBC asking for a complete breakdown of how much tuition and fees goes towards athletics, instructional salaries, administrative staff salaries, management salaries, classrooms, etc. (which was defeated). He noted that the second transparency motion on today's agenda breaks down university expenses by categories.
  • Sen. Villanti reiterated that all of this information is already available on the Business Services website. Over 65% of the Athletics budget is staffing; that will show on the staffing report. Sen. Crundwell opined that the information that is out there is not easily accessible to students or members of the general public. He also called attention to the total listed for internal CCSU-funded scholarship in the announcements for scholarships on Pipeline ($2.5 million), which is vastly less than the scholarship totals listed for athletics on their available reports ($4.2 million).
  • Sen. Barr noted that the Business Services website notes that $7.5M was provided to Athletics in a prior fiscal year and that an allocation of that magnitude certainly exceeds the cost of an academic department. He opined that because Athletics is not an academic program is comparing apples to oranges unless we are operating outside our charter.
• MOTION: To postpone this Resolution to the November 29, 2021 meeting of the Senate. Motion approved 33-8 by roll call vote.
• Resolution Requesting from the University Administration a Breakdown of Revenue and Expenditures
• President Latour reviewed the proposed resolution.
• MOTION: To accept this Resolution. Seconded.
• Discussion:
  • Sen. Halkin suggested that how much that goes to the System Office could be listed as an Expense, rather than as its own category.
  • Sen. Crundwell explained that the revenue categories correlate to how Business Services categorizes them, but the expense categories do not. He indicated that the difference between this resolution and the one he proposed is that his resolution was student-centered, focusing on what their tuition and fees go toward. What this resolution includes is all revenue, not just tuition and fees. He feels this will have a different effect in showing the information. He said he is in favor of this resolution, however, despite the differences.
  • Vice President Bishop noted that the CCSU Foundation also provides support to the University. She asked where that would fit into this structure.
  • Sen. Halkin asked if the System Office is getting money sent to them from tuition and fees, students to be made aware of this.
  • Sen. Barr noted that Sen. Halkin’s question was very interesting since the funds at the System Office seem to be a “black box.” He spoke in favor of the resolution, particularly because it has been implied that their department will be losing positions. Therefore, we need to ask for as much transparency as possible, as it is currently very difficult to see what is going on.
  • Sen. Villanti asked why the first resolution did not include revenue. Sen. Crundwell responded to say that how the NCAA reports revenue is very strange (all athletics expenses are reported, as well as all actual athletics revenue, but since the overall athletics budget needs to be balanced, the NCAA considers the amount provided to the athletics department directly by the university as "revenue", even though it is not really athletics revenue). The "revenue" that comes from the university comes from tuition, fees, appropriations, etc., and the first resolution focuses on how much tuition and fees (per student) is used to balance the athletics budget.
  • Sen. Crundwell reiterated he supports both resolutions. Sen. Villanti indicated he does not.
  • Prof. Resetarits suggested that revenue be include in the first resolution so that there is consistency.
  • F. Latour interjected to remind the Senate that the first Resolution has already been postponed. He invited everyone to send comments to the Senate Steering Committee about the first Resolution if they so desire.
  • Sen. Duquette indicated that the framing of the first motion was not done in the same way as this Resolution. The first resolution asked how much student fees money supports athletics and this resolution, “less loaded” in his terms, asks how much the athletics program costs the university.
  • F. Latour invited amendments and reiterated that it would be helpful if amendments were sent before a Senate meeting so that it could be posted ahead of time.
• MOTION: To postpone this Resolution to give Senators a change to bring this back to their departments (Bishop). The motion was seconded. Motion approved 35-5 by roll call vote.

d. Proposal to merge the Departments of Art and Design into a single Department of Art within the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences

• This item was deferred to the meeting of November 29, 2021.

e. Proposal to create a Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the School of Education and Professional Studies

• Interim Dean Mulrooney presented the proposal circulated with the agenda. He stated that the major goal is to highlight and elevate Elementary Education. The other main reason is to create a home for the master’s in teaching. The overall goal is to increase enrollments.
• Questions:
  • Sen. Barr asked whether there had ever been a proposal for a new department without a stronger sense of what the curriculum would look like. What will the courses be? Will current majors be redirected? Are new faculty lines required to make this work?
  • J. Mulrooney indicated this is primarily a management change. There are no changes to the programs or the curriculum. As it stands right now, it will function fine as it proposed. If enrollments increase, necessitating additional faculty, the normal UPBC process would be followed. F. Latour added that when Journalism split from English, it did not lead to new programs or courses; it was just a change in the organizational structure.
  • Sen. Bray asked how the new department name highlights Secondary Education.
  • J. Mulrooney noted he is not wedded to the new name; it was suggested. If this proposal goes forward, the department will have the opportunity to tweak the name. Interim Provost Kostelis indicated that there is not typically a department of Secondary Education because secondary education programs typically involve multiple disciplines.
  • Sen. Crundwell asked whether this is a reversal of the change that happened back in 2014, when the department chair at the time said they were left out of the process. Has it changed this time? Were the people involved in this change included in the process? Interim Dean Mulrooney said "partially". K. Kostelis indicated that during that reorganization, having a separate department that would include secondary education issues was part of the initial discussion, but agreement could not be reached. This is not a reversal; this is actually continuing what was original proposed by having an additional department that focuses on secondary education.
  • Sen. Crundwell opined that the same thing that happened last time is happening this time. K. Kostelis stated that this has been a topic of discussion for a while among the department and that the Interim Dean has been meeting individually with the department numerous times. G. Crundwell asked whether the four impacted faculty agree with this change. J. Mulrooney said that he doesn't really know, but one of the four is definitely in favor. He indicated that this is not about personalities, but about organizing a school in a way that is best for enrollment, which is the Dean's job. He has conferred with the union and in his view, the dean can make this change. G. Crundwell said that this is a group of faculty who have been moved several times against their will over two decades, and thus there is a need to take personalities into account.
  • Sen. Foster asked if there has been any discussion of eventually expanding this department because four faculty is a small number. Or is this ultimately a cost-savings measure? J. Mulrooney recapped what he said earlier; if enrollment increases, that could be a rationale for more faculty.
  • F. Latour recapped comments in the chat:
    • The Senator from Literacy, Elementary & Early Childhood Education passed on a departmental request to table this until the next meeting because many faculty are seeing this for the first time and asked what would happen if the new department does not succeed in increasing enrollment into the MAT program or the new program being designed. J. Mulrooney indicated a new MAT cohort is forming and the demand is high (over 20 applications). He reiterated no programs are being changed; we are seeking to increase enrollment. Secondary education courses and programs will always exist.
    • Is there a connection between this proposal and the other item requesting the Senate advise on the selection of a department chair for another unit. J. Mulrooney indicated yes, there is a link between the two.
    • The AAUP president stated the relevant AAUP contract language. Full time members can be reassigned, but they need to have been consulted.
  • Sen. Barr said without the support of the faculty, he does not see success in the future.
  • Sen. Crundwell stated while there may have been conversations, there are faculty who have been left out of the process.
  • Sen. Bray asked if there are costs attendant to this change. J. Mulrooney indicated that there are some minimal costs, such as the $1300 for the new Chair’s stipend.
  • A faculty who teaches in the Literacy, Elementary & Early Childhood Education program wrote to F. Latour and he read their statement: “Until this morning, [they were] unaware that this proposal was coming to the Senate. [S/he] teaches 4 courses in the program and is astonished to be just finding about this now. J. Mulrooney said that it was shared with all SEPS chairs, that the affected department has been notified, and that he spoke with the Provost, the President, the AAUP President, and the Senate President. It was not widely shared until it was put on the Senate agenda. J. Mulrooney is also under the impression that there will be no vote today, and the proposal is on the agenda for discussion at this point. F. Latour indicated that items need to be put on the agenda in order to be discussed. He also said that because the Senate has advisory capacity on this kind of issue, it would be awkward for us to say that we don't want to deal with it. He outlined the process of moving this item to a future meeting, and suggested that we could request that Interim Dean Mulrooney meet with all affected faculty members and with everyone who might raise an objection.
  • Someone asked whether a faculty member could belong to more than one department. F. Latour recapped current contract language which indicates that each faculty belong to a single academic department for reasons such as evaluation.
  • Sen. King made a request to ask the four impacted faculty to provide their input into the proposal. She hopes that everyone being moved is on board with being moved. Sen. Sikorski and Sen. Barr expressed agreement with Sen. King.
  • MOTION: To postpone this discussion to the next meeting (Langevin.) The motion was seconded (Crundwell). Motion approved unanimously.
  • J. Mulrooney invited comments/questions from people via email with a cc to F. Latour.

  5. Adjournment

  • The meeting adjourned at 5:12pm.
  SUMMARY OF ROLL CALL VOTES