Faculty Senate

Minutes - November 29, 2021 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Acharya, K.; Al-Masoud, N.; Amaya, L.; Atkinson, S.; Barr, B.; Benoit, D.; Bigelow, L.; Bishop, J.; Blitz, D.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Crundwell, G.; Donohue, P.; Drew, S.; Duquette, M.; Dumpson, N.; Elfant, A.; Emeagwali, G.; Evans, 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.; June, A.; Karas, R.; Kean, K.; King, A.; Kreeger, J.; Kumar, R.; Langevin, K.; Larsen, K.; Lewis, M.; Liu, R.; Martin, A.; Martin, V.; Matthews, S.; Matzke, B.; McCarthy, M.; Morano, P.; 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, J.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Spear, E.; Strickland, A.; Sugg, K.; Sylvester, C.; Tafrate, L.; Tellier, A.; Thomas, J.; Vargas, C.; Villanti, S.; Wang, W.; Washko, L.; Whittemore, L. Zadi, S.; Zhao, S.

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

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Akinpelu, A.; Ayalon, A.; Barriteau-Phaire, C.; Bantley, K.; Bartone, M.; Bucher, L.; Choudhery, S.; Cintorino, S.; Claffey, G.; Edwards, J.; Elsinger, N.; Fallon, M.; Ford, S.; Frank, L.; Gleason, B.; Hall, P.; Holden, P.; Kara-Soteriou, J.; Kirby, Y.; Leonidas, E.; Lueken, C.; Magnan, C.; Martin, K.; McGrath, K.; Melnyk, J.; Merenstein, B.; Miller, S.; Moore, N.; Moreland, D.; Palmer, J.; Parady, K.; Resetarits, P.; Reyna, M.; Robinson, C.; Scarritt, S.; Suski-Lenczewski, A.; Tobon, B.; Werblow, J.

1. Minutes

The Minutes of November 15, 2021, were not available.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (L. Bigelow)

c. SGA (N. Elsinger)

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

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

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

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

a. Academic Standards Committee (E. Leonidas)

  • E. Leonidas presented the Academic Standards Committee report circulated with the agenda, which includes two items that need Senate action:
    1. Proposal to change courses required as prerequisites in the B.S. in Elementary Education.
    2. Request for endorsement of a proposal from L. Hall in Recruitment & Admissions to establish standards for automatic admission to CCSU. This is required by a piece of legislation passed this summer. We must have a policy on automatic admission; this policy codifies what our policy will be. The Academic Standards Committee has unanimously endorsed this proposal. It will likely affect 5-10% of the first-year applicant pool. This is only a proposal; it must go from the President to the BOR and then there are considerable technical considerations that must be met, such as what the application process will look like.
    • Sen. Halkin asked whether EDEL 212, a new course, has prerequisites. E. Leonidas indicated it does not and will also be a gen ed course, so it does not have prerequisites. S. Halkin asked about the statement that the course would not be taught by part-time faculty. She wondered whether the full-time faculty could absorb this course load. It was indicated that this course does not have a large population, that students in this course would come from another course (EDF 215) that would now be split into two courses (EDF 215 and EDEL 212) so that each cohort would take the course from a specialist in their area. EDEL 212 is not being restricted to Elementary Education students.
    • Sen. Whittemore asked whether our automatic admission proposal is supported by all the other CSU's? She also said she is curious if we're admitting all the same students or if we are aware of a potential population that may not be "targeted" that may result in more students enrolling here at CCSU? E. Leonidas indicated that L. Hall indicated it was created in conjunction with the admissions professionals on the other campuses, so it is supported. L. Whittemore clarified she was asking whether the campuses will all be competing for the same students, who are automatically admitted to all CSUs and whether there is a way for us to leverage this policy to attract a new population. E. Leonidas indicated that it is still unclear what kind of impact this policy will have. As is often the case, this is worded generously now and it may be changed down the line.
    • President Toro indicated that this proposal was presented to the System Office and the President of the System. It must be approved at the System, by the System President and by the Board. She said it is not clear that the policy, as written, would be approved by the Board.
    • A senator from Philosophy asked about the standards listed in the proposal: high school GPA of 3.5 or better and being in the top 15% of the graduating class. Is this an “and” or an “or”? E. Leonidas said it is his understanding applicants need to have both.
    • B. Barr stated that an automatic admission policy would be especially beneficial if it also came with a waiver of the application fee. Although we may think the fee is nominal, it may not be nominal to a lot of people. E. Leonidas replied that part of the legislation that required this policy also required that each university have an application fee waiver day, which CCSU had on November 15th. It is unclear whether this waiver day resulted in applications that we would not otherwise have attracted.
    • S. Halkin asked President Toro why she thought it would not be approvable by the Board. Z. Toro replied that according to the preliminary feedback received from the legislature and Governor’s office, the criteria is too high. The legislature is looking for a large number of currently inadmissible students to be admissible.
    • J. Bishop asked whether Senate action to endorse this is premature. E. Leonidas indicated it is not. The Admissions Office thinks what is in the policy before the Senate is workable.
    • Regarding to the first proposal, Sen. Gichiru asked whether Early Childhood students would take EDEL 212? E. Leonidas indicated that the proposal only covers elementary education, so he does not know. W. Gichiru indicated that she is the chair of the department that would be hosting EDEL 212, which is a general education courses, and they can now take this course.
    • MOTION: To divide the question. The motion was seconded. Motion passed.
    • MOTION: To endorse the guaranteed or automatic admissions policy proposed by the Recruitment and Admissions Office and endorsed by the Academic Standards Committee. Motion approved 60-1 by roll call vote.
    • MOTION: To approve the proposal to change courses required as prerequisites in the B.S. in Elementary Education. Motion approved unanimously.

      • b. Curriculum Committee (N. Moore)

      • N. Moore presented the Curriculum Committee report circulated with the agenda.
      • MOTION: To approve the Curriculum Committee report. Motion approved unanimously.

      c. Council of Academic Chairpersons* (S. Maurer)

      • S. Maurer presented the Council of Academic Chairpersons report circulated with the agenda.
      • The report was accepted.
4. Unfinished Business

a. 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)
    • 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. (Sen. Crundwell) Motion was seconded.
    • Discussion.
    • President Latour invited comments from Sen. Crundwell, who declined in favor of speaking last.
    • Sen. Villanti noted he has submitted an amendment to replace both Resolutions. He spoke against the current Resolution. He moved to replace both Resolutions on the agenda with his proposed Resolution. President Latour indicated that, as a matter of order, the Resolutions are being considered separately so it is awkward to have a motion to substitute another Resolution for both Resolutions. He clarified that Sen. Villanti is essentially asking to substitute a resolution for the second Resolution on the agenda. So, basically, he is asking for the Senate to (1) stop debating the current Resolution by, for example, a motion to postpone it indefinitely and (2) amend the second proposal by replacing it with his proposal. President Latour consulted the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian agreed with point (2). As for (1), since this Resolution did not come from a committee, it cannot be remanded to a committee to dispose of it, so postponement is an option. President Latour decided that what Sen. Villanti is asking is to postpone the current Resolution indefinitely and that will Sen. Villanti will later make his proposal to substitute his amendment for the second Resolution, since it is not currently on the floor. Sen. Villanti agreed.
    • MOTION: To postpone the Resolution Concerning the Reporting of the Amount of Student Monies taken from the University General Fund to Cover the Athletics Budget indefinitely. Motion seconded.
    • Debate:
      • Sen Crundwell spoke to say he was not surprised and agreed with putting the motion to a vote.
      • Sen. Barr commended in favor of putting the current motion to a vote.
      • Sen. Bishop asked if this Resolution could be pulled back if this motion passed. The Parliamentarian said no, but a new resolution could be proposed.
      • There was a request for the vote to be by secret ballot. President Latour indicated that is not possible under the current State meeting regulations.
      • Sen. Crundwell asked if the minutes would reflect how each senator voted. President Latour indicated that what he has been doing under these COVID conditions is to create a spreadsheet to show how each senator voted on each motion. He then posts the spreadsheet at the bottom of the minutes.
      • Sen. Halkin reminded the body each senator votes to represent their department, and that may be different from their personal opinions.
      • Sen. Sikorski asked, on behalf of his department, about negative ramifications of approving the motion.
        • Sen. Crundwell said that one negative ramification would be that the Resolution that has been on the agenda for two weeks will never be voted on. He then asked if Sen. Sikorski was asking about negative ramifications of the resolution, or the vote to postpone the resolution indefinitely.
        • Sen. Villanti spoke against the Resolution.
      • Sen. Hernandez asked if the SGA has commented on this Resolution. President Latour indicated he has not heard from the SGA on this Resolution.
      • Sen. Bigelow spoke against the resolution.
      • President Toro noted that there is already an abundance of financial information available concerning athletics expenditures. Not only is this information available on the Financial Services webpage, but also the webpage of the Taskforce on Sustainability of the Athletics program, which is also up to date. Collectively, all information that can be generated has been generated and posted given our fee structure.
      • Sen. Crundwell noted that in the past, the UPBC used to breakdown the general fee and show the total amount of Athletics fees collected from this fee, but they do not do it anymore. The reason for that, according to what the Budget Director told him last week is “because there is no one fee designated for any area that would be sufficient enough to fund, in totality, such as the old breakdown you have attached, which is the reason I believe they changed it. This fee along with many other sources of revenue fund all areas of the University.” Sen. Crundwell stated that many of our sister schools flat-out tell their students how much of their money supports athletics. We do not. If we want to be serious about the accountability and sustainability of our athletics program, then do not postpone this motion and more.
      • Paul Resetarits indicated that the examples that have been given include sister universities like Buffalo State and that he picked up the phone and called them. He learned that they get a separate allocation for salaries from the State of New York and that their student fee is not the only source of income used to balance their athletics budget. He called the comparison being made by Sen. Crundwell a comparison of apples to oranges. He also noted that the Knight Commission is not a part of the NCAA. It is a stand-alone independent commission that has not official connection to any governing bodies, such as the NCAA. Again, misrepresentations are being given. He indicated he sat on the Athletics Task Force and that Sen. Crundwell is correct when he says the strategic plan has not been followed-through. He noted that in the time since the Task Force was charged, there have been four athletic directors, all interim, like many parts of the university. Wrong or right, some recommendations of the Task Force have not been implemented, and they probably should be. He closed by saying they have been forthcoming with data and answering Sen. Crundwell’s questions for the past ten years, trying to be as transparent as possible.
      • President Toro indicated she made herself available to speak to the Senate when the sustainability report was made to the Senate. Sen. Crundwell was there and she recalled answering every question he asked. She stated she is committed to making every effort to make our athletics program sustainable, but at the same time, she must be realistic. There is no athletic program like ours in the nation that is fully sustainable. With fully sustainable program can be counted on one hand. If we want to be a regional comprehensive university, we should have an athletic program and that has a cost. The athletics team has made every effort to contain costs. At the same time, we were hit by the pandemic. They cannot be blamed for the fact that the games we are paid for have been cancelled for two years. They cannot be blamed for the fact that NCAA revenues that we get annually was reduced to less than 20% of what we usually get annually. We must be realistic. President Toro stated she is supremely supportive of academic affairs, but as president, she needs to be supportive of every are of the university to the best of her ability and the ability of the university. Every one of these resolutions needs to take into consideration that there are realities that the administration must deal with.
      • MOTION: To call the question. Motion approved 52-1 by roll call vote.
      • MOTION: To postpone the Resolution Concerning the Reporting of the Amount of Student Monies taken from the University General Fund to Cover the Athletics Budget indefinitely. Motion failed 26-30 by roll call vote.
    • Debate:
      • Sen. Kreeger asked what the history/purpose/aim of the original motion has been over the course of the past ten years.
      • Sen. Crundwell stated it stems from the Knight Commission which recommends more transparency.
      • Sen. Villanti spoke against the resolution.
      • Sen. June asked why people are against this Resolution if the information is already available.
      • Sen Crundwell indicated that the information that is not available is the cost per student.
    • MOTION: To call the question. Motion approved 42-8 by roll call vote.
    • 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 which requires that the University (1) annually calculates and communicates the portion of student fees/tuition that is taken from the University General Fund to balance the cost of CCSU’s athletic program and (2) communicates to all students the average annual cost per student. Motion failed 20-32 by roll call vote.
  • Resolution Requesting from the University Administration a Breakdown of Revenue and Expenditures

  • Counter-Proposal to the two proposals above (S. Villanti)
  • F. Latour clarified that at this point in the discussion, comments may be made on the proposal to amend, or the original proposal.
  • Sen. Blitz spoke in favor of the original motion for the following reason: he chaired UPBC from 2000-2009 and they did prepare, with the CFO, and publish top-level pie charts. It was clear to him at the time that you must go deeper, and the original proposal does that. Athletics is a sector, as is Management & Confidential, as is administrative faculty salaries, and it gives a better idea of where the money is going. If a category increases over time, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It is important to have more than just what the second resolution is calling for. It is only asking for two sectors.
    • Sen. Villanti spoke to the contrary, stating the original proposal singles out athletics. Sen. Blitz disagreed.
  • Sen. Crundwell asked how the three pie charts would be made. F. Latour asked him to indicate if this was in reference to the second proposal. He said it was.
    • Sen. Villanti suggested faculty salaries, non-academic units, operational budgets, etc.
  • Sen. Duquette asked what sectors are included under other expenses.
    • F. Latour said that is hard to say because the university has a number of expenses, and while people are interested in some, we are not necessarily interested in all of them specifically. If there are other things that people would like pulled out of “other” that could be requested.
  • President Toro asked how we can represent expenditures in the last resolution. For example, management & confidential salaries and other operating expenses. Assuming that is other operating expenses related to management & confidential, yet management & confidential are in other units, like Student Affairs. It is confusing.
  • Sen. Morano asked if the current UPBC chair could provide some insight.
    • J. Melnyk said he is trying to appreciate what the problem is that we want to solve. A majority of all of this data is available. He speculated that the question is more a matter of how all this data is organized. He said you can see salaries. You cannot see them broken down by sector (e.g., AAUP, Management & Confidential). What problem are we trying to solve? Also, the UPBC reports directly to the Senate, so if you have something you need us to investigate, we would be happy to do that.
  • K. Martin indicated we previously had a CFO who did pie charts, but no recent CFO has wanted to do that. She agreed with J. Melnyk that all this information is out there. She suggested this be referred to L. Bucher to see what she can prepare and then we can see if that is what we want.
  • Sen. Halkin asked if we were going to consider the replacement motion seriously, it is important to nail down what is what, because several overlaps are evident. She asked how can we allocate things so that they do not overlap.
  • Sen. Crundwell indicated that the basis for the pie charts is in the budget document on the audited financial statements and audit report son the Fiscal Affairs homepage, for 2020. You will see revenue and expense pie charts. Everyone is satisfied with the revenue breakdown in these reports, but people want to tease out expenses differently. The first one separates athletics; the second one does not. Both models breakdown expenses by salary and fringe for SUOAF, AAUP and management and confidential. That is the best summary he can make. He agreed with K. Martin’s questions about what it is that we really want.
  • Sen. Blitz made the point that putting something on the web somewhere is not the same thing as having a presentation to Senate complete with summary charts and figures in advance, “It’s on the web somewhere” is not satisfactory response. It should be synthesized and presented to the senators so that the senators can ask questions. He endorsed K. Martin’s suggest having L. Bucher visit the senate in the Spring to discuss the categories and the evolution of the expenses.
  • MOTION: Sen. Bigelow moved to amend the amendment with suggestions for three pie charts: SALARIES (by division, then by union/M&C within the division), REVENUES (by division), and EXPENDITURES (by division.) Motion seconded.
  • Sen. Crundwell suggested that this motion not be considered until it was determined whether the original or proposed amendment passed. Sen. Bigelow agreed.
  • MOTION: To refer both resolutions to the UPBC (R. Smith). Motion seconded.
  • The Parliamentarian clarified that if there is a motion to refer to committee, the whole package would need to go: the original proposal, the amendment and the proposed amendment to the amendment.
  • Sen. Crundwell stated that sending an amendment that was made by the Steering Committee of the Senate to a Senate committee seemed silly. The UPBC is meant to do business for the Senate. Why did the Steering Committee put it on the floor in the first place.
  • Sen. Bishop indicated that what came from the Steering Committee was not an amendment, it was a second proposal. The first proposal was Sen. Crundwell’s proposal and the second resolution was from the Steering Committee after it looked at what Sen. Crundwell proposed. The third one is Villanti’s amendment.
  • Fred noted the awkwardness of having a proposal, a second proposal, and amendment and an amendment to the amendment and that it could be referred to the UPBC, but it could also be referred to the Steering Committee.
  • The Parliamentarian clarified that regardless of where it gets referred to, that body could proposal alternate working that resolves all these differences and a new proposal would come before the Senate.
  • MOTION: to withdraw the motion to refer the proposals to the UPBC was put out for the consideration of the assembly. Hearing no objections, the motion was withdrawn.
  • MOTION: To refer both resolutions and subsequent amendments) to the Senate Steering Committee. Motion seconded. Motion approved unanimously.

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

  • J. Mulrooney declined the invitation to speak first. He indicated he would gladly answer questions.
  • Sen. King asked if the three members of the new departments who had not previously been consulted have since been consulted and agreed to the formation of the new department.
  • J. Mulrooney indicated he has met with two of the four impacted faculty.
  • Sen. Emeagwali stated she would like to hear from all of the affected faculty.
  • Sen. Smith asked if Dean Mulrooney has consulted all impacted faculty, including those who will remain in the existing department.
  • J. Mulrooney indicated is has been discussed with CTEN, all program coordinators of secondary education and K-12 education programs and the two deans in the schools that have education programs, Dr. Wolff and Dr. Jarrett. He stated he has made a good faith attempt to share the proposal with everyone impacted. He has made himself available to hear the concerns of anyone who wanted to speak to him.
  • Sen. Barr thanked J. Mulrooney for sharing this with the secondary educators, but says it is not clear what they think about this.
  • J. Mulrooney stated that there are no curriculum changes and no other faculty are being moved. He said this is more an issue of managing the school’s resources.
  • Sen. Barr said it would help him to know if the people from the 8 secondary education coordinators were on board with this and would like to hear from them.
  • J. Mulrooney asked what he wanted to hear and noted that he had spoken with the coordinator in Sen. Barr’s department.
    • B. Barr clarified that he wants to hear that they think this is a good idea and endorse this proposal and he cannot support this until he knows these faculty support it.
  • Sen. Halkin related this proposal to the proposal later in the agenda where an ad hoc committee is being formed to recommend a chair for the Educational Leadership, Policy, and Instructional Technology department. She stated she thinks it would be prudent to wait until a chair has been appointed before moving on this proposal and that ideally, this could wait until next semester. She expressed that if this is such a good idea, there should not be a concern about deferring this a short time.
  • J. Mulrooney said that creating a new department and appointing a chair for the other department are two separate issues. He also stressed that, according to the contract, it is up to the deans and the president, not the faculty, to create a new academic department.
    • Sen. Halkin opined that creating a new department before the other department gets a chair, is backwards.
    • Sen. Crundwell expressed criticism of the Senate leadership since, as he understands it, the dean contacted the Steering Committee to put this onto the agenda before he contacted any of the four impacted faculty. He feels that in the future, the Steering Committee should establish procedures along the lines of when the Senate Steering Committee is contacted by a dean to have something put on the Senate agenda, the Steering Committee does its due diligence and speaks to the affected faculty member(s), since the dean might not have.
    • Sen. Smith asked Dean Mulrooney to clarify how the OE and adjunct funds will be distributed across the two departments and additionally, what will be the estimated FTE enrollment for the department?
    • J. Mulrooney said the funds would be “distributed accordingly” as they are now. He did not have the FTE data in his head but said that since one of the reasons for this proposal is to increase enrollment, he hoped the FTE would increase. Across the two departments there would no net change.
    • Sen. King expressed concerned about voting on this without having any word or consent from two of those who are being moved. She asked what their concerns are, why have they not met with anyone? She also expressed concern about the small size of the new department.
    • Sen. Sikorski said that his constituents have expressed concerns like what Sen. King stated.
    • J. Werblow clarified for the Senate that yes, as Sen. Crundwell stated, the dean met with the Steering Committee prior to meeting with the impacted faculty. When he (J. Werblow) heard from the dean, it was at 8:30 in the morning requesting he attend a meeting in 3 hours, and that email did not express any rationale or context for the meeting. Later that evening, the dean forwarded an email saying this proposal has been public information, and “here it is.” J. Werblow found that insulting, but also raised questions about the process in which this was handled. He said that at the same time the Senate is charged with finding the chair of his department (because the department had elected him and that was not acceptable to the administration), he is finding out that he is being moved to a new department. He asked the Senate to reject this proposal because clearly the process has not been followed. He noted that if Dr. Mulrooney wants to propose a new department, which he has the power do to, the Senate should not be supportive because his approach has not been transparent at the department level. Beyond budget concerns, where will the faculty be physically housed and what administrative support will it have? He said the matter feels like an act of retaliation.
    • Dr. A. Ayalon spoke to the Senate in opposition to the proposal and in his capacity as another faculty impacted by this proposal. He has been at the university 20 years and has overseen the secondary education program. He stated he feels that if a dean, appointed from outside the school, had a plan like this in mind, he should have at least consulted the impacted faculty. Instead, he sent a last-minute request to attend a meeting that was being scheduled at the same time he was being seated on a city council. He indicated the decision to move the MAT, currently in the Special Education and Interventions office, has never really had a home. He acknowledged that J. Mulrooney took this to CTEN but noted that when the group was asked to speak in favor of this proposal, no one endorsed it. To recap, no one is supporting this proposal. There is no reason for a new department other than to avoid an outside chair in our department. If nothing will change, why are we making changes? This department is not viable; it has no majors. At the graduate level, no one in Teacher Education was allowed to teach in the MAT (and he has never taught in it.) Right now, we have no viable program that the department can claim as its own. What needs to be done is to ask ourselves how we want to improve our graduate and undergraduate education programs and then make changes accordingly.
    • Sen. Bray spoke of her experience being in a department that was split. She said from an advising perspective and student perspective, there is constant confusion. From a student perspective it is hard to explain why a department fractured. She said she has received feedback from an alumna about how the department split negatively impacted her academic experience at CCSU.
    • Prof. Ayalon noted that there are integrations with other programs in the department, and this proposal is going to impact those and cause confusion among students.
    • Sen. Zadi noted that the coordinator in his department has asked J. Mulrooney questions which have not been answered.
    • J. Mulrooney indicated that she does have an email from him.
    • Sen. King asked what happens if the Senate does not endorse this proposal? F. Latour indicated that if the Senate votes not to support the proposal, it goes to the President with the recommendation that we do not support it. Since the Senate’s role in a matter such as this is advisory only, while the President needs to take our feedback into consideration, she does not have to accept it.
    • MOTION: That the Senate not support this proposal. (Crundwell.) Motion seconded (Foster.)
    • The Parliamentarian clarified that by the fact that this proposal is on the agenda, there is an implied motion to support it and that must be dealt with before Sen. Crundwell’s Motion can be entertained.
    • F. Latour outlined options for the Senate: (1) to vote not to support it or (2) to recommend that Dean Mulrooney have discussions with the faculty. One of the big issues is that two members of the proposed department feel as if they have not been consulted.
    • J. Mulrooney stressed that this is a structural change that will manage resources better and increase enrollment. He asked senators to focus on these two points as the merit of the proposal. He stated that the two faculty who are saying they have not been consulted have chosen not to be consulted, and he feels that needs to be made known “loud and clear.” He has asked to meet with them on more than one occasion and they refuse to meet.
    • Sen. King reflected on the presentation by the Ombudsman in Senate last week and asked whether this is an issue that could be referred to the Ombudsman. She honestly thinks there are too many concerns to vote yes, but maybe the Senate should not vote no.
    • Sen. Bishop asked if the other eight faculty in the department had been consulted.
    • J. Mulrooney said they have been consulted.
    • Prof. Ayalon said he has not heard of discussion taking place at the department level. He again urged the Senate to reject the proposal.
    • Sen. Bishop said that the reasons that J. Mulrooney gave are not apparent in this proposal and because she cannot see his vision, she cannot support this proposal.
    • J. Mulrooney asked if another week would lend clarity and said he is willing to share the email he sent to the coordinator. He expressed again his willingness to meet with anyone to discuss all or parts of the proposal. He stressed he is trying to build enrollment and look at other ways to management our programs. He sees this proposal as a way to give focus to a program and if enrollments increase, to grow a new department.
    • MOTION: To call the question. Motion seconded. Motion approved unanimously.
    • MOTION: That the Faculty Senate endorse the Proposal to create a Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the School of Education and Professional Studies. Motion failed 1-24 by roll call vote.

    5. New Business

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

  • Postponed to the next meeting due to the late hour

    • b. Creation of Ad Hoc Committee for recommending a chair of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Instructional Technology

    • Postponed to the next meeting due to the late hour

    6. Adjournment

      • The meeting adjourned at 6:01pm.
    SUMMARY OF ROLL CALL VOTES