Faculty Senate

Minutes - December 5, 2022 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Acharya, K.; Al-Masoud, N.; Amaya, L.; Andreoletti, C.; Arena, J.; Barr, B.; Benoit, D.; Best, F.; Bigelow, L.; Boone, N.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Casas, L.; Cole, E.; Donohue, P.; Duquette, J.; Elfant, A.; Emeagwali, G.; Fallon, M.; Farhat, J.; Farrish, K.; Foster, P.; French, J.; Gamache, J.; Garbovskiy, Y.; Gardner, P.; Gonzalez, K.; Hazan, S.; Hernandez, R.; Horrax, S.; Jackson, M.; Kapper, M.; Karas, R.; Kelly, D.; King, A.; Langevin, K.; Lui, R.; Martin, K.; Matthews, S.; Matzke, B.; McCarthy, M.; Mitchell, D.; Moriarty, M.; Nicastro, M.; Ning, W.; O'Connor, J.; Ofray, J.; Orange, M.; Oyewumi, Y.; Paolina, J.; Patterson, Y.; Phillips, E.; Recoder-Nunez, L.; Rivera, T.; Robin, A.; Rodgers-Tonge, D.; Salama, T.; Savatorova, V.; Schenck, S.; Schmidt, S.; Seamans-Frizell, S.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Tellier, A.; Villanti, S.; Wang, W.; Werblow, J.; Zadi, S.; Zhao, S.; Zidani-Eroglu, L.

Ex-Officio: Blitz, D.; Burkholder, T.; Frank, L.; Kostelis, K.; Minkler, S.; Mulrooney, J.;Wolff, R.

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Bantley, K.; Bucher, L.; Byrd Danso, K.; Cintorino, S.; Claffey, G.; Kirby, Y.; Jacobson, L.; Larsen, K.; McGrath, K.; McMahon, L.; Merenstein, B.; Olamuyiwa, O.; Pincince, T.; Robinson, C.; Ross, J.; Suski-Lenczewski, A.; Throesch, E.; Tully, J.;  Veloria, C.; Votto, S.; Wright, C.

1. Minutes

• Minutes of November 28, 2022

• The minutes of November 28, 2022 were approved.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

• The rally at Western scheduled for next Monday has been cancelled. They want to get as many Western faculty in their Senate meeting as possible and cancelling the rally will allow them to do that.  Tom thanked those willing to attend.
  • F. Latour asked if the Senate meeting was being livestreamed. Tom indicated he did not know.
  • F. Latour will be meeting with the other senate presidents on Thursday and will report back on what CCSU may be able to do.
  • T. Burkholder indicated the WCSU Curriculum Committee has voted against cancelling the majors.
• There is a holiday social this Friday from 3-6 p.m. at Alvarium. A reminder notification was sent today.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (L. Bigelow)

• SUOAF extended its good wishes for faculty and students to have a restful and restorative winter break.

c. SGA (O. Olamuyiwa)

• There is not much to report this week.  Thanks were extended to the Senate for their commitment this semester. The SGA is working on finalizing how to disburse scholarships to students.  The last Senate meeting of the semester is this Wednesday and it will be a virtual meeting.
• The SGA sent out a reminder to students to complete student opinion surveys for Fall 2022 courses.  Another reminder will go out before the end of the week.
• Good wishes were extended for everyone to have a safe break.
• Chat question from Sen. Smith: I understand from students that it is hard for them to find the evals.  When they open BBLearn, they land on their course pages and do not know how to get back to evals. Did SGA send them visual directions on how to navigate to evals?
  • SGA: Yes, directions were sent, but it did not include a visual.  Students have not written to SGA to say they were having problems finding the evals. They have emailed to ask if the surveys are confidential and SGA confirmed that to be the case.
• Sen. Andreoletti: I think faculty can share links for specific courses with their students. I did that on Blackboard last semester. Was there any progress on identifying students who are unable to go home for the holidays? 
  • SGA response: Yes, we identified that for Thanksgiving Break but have not been able to do that for Winter Break. We will continue to work on that in collaboration with S. Hazan and Dean Hernandez.
• Sen. Hazan clarified that what SGA is doing is in addition to what is being done by the Office of Residence Life.  Students can put in a request to stay in the residence halls during the winter.  This is an annual process.
• Sen. Best said there remains a number of community organizations who are willing to assist students (i.e., churches and VFWs). He is willing to help anyway he can.

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

• D. Blitz provided the following report on behalf of the FAC:
  • The Resolution of Support passed at the last FAC meeting was presented and read.  A few sections were highlighted in red and discussed in detail.
  • A second resolution passed at the FAC meeting, Resolution on Faculty Control of Curriculum, was also presented.  Highlights were read and discussed in detail.
  • There was a presentation of the CSCU Library Consortium.  They have improved inter-library loan, including the speed at which it can be executed.  There are new databases that include online books from Yale, Harvard and a number of other university presses.  People were encouraged to poke around in the journal and database areas of the library system.
  • There was discussion at the recent Open Forum of the Presidents and the Senate on the Strategic Vision plan of CSCU.  The FAC has never seen this. The individual mission statements of the four universities are not included, but a general mission statement for the Connecticut State Universities is included. 
    Highlighted in red was one mention of faculty and two references to “knowledge.” At the bottom of the page, the goals are: (1) student success; (2) innovation and economic growth; (3) affordability and sustainability; and (4) “Systemness.”  David will be asking what “systemness” means.  As the goal states, it is to “realize the full potential of the CSCU system and our collective efforts to meet student needs while promoting civic responsibility/public service, community engagement, and social justice as core CSCU values.”  We probably all agree with that, but the three bullet points that follow, have nothing to do with that.  It is curious.  The general term “systemness” is not a word recognized by the definitive authority for the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. FAC Rep. Blitz presented the results of his research on the term, including the fact that as pertains to higher education, it was coined at SUNY.  It is also in the NASH: the National Association of System Heads, which defines it as: “Systems have not fully recognized their potential to scale improvements across campuses, nor have they had the incentive to collaborate and share proven solutions across state lines.  We must work together and harness the power of public higher education systems to better serve students and society.” The FAC has more work to do to understand this new term being used by the BOR and System Office.
  • FAC Rep Blitz reiterated that the FAC remains committed to ensuring that the system office adheres to section IV of the FAC charter which reads in part:
    • (IV)(4) Respect the distinct missions of the universities and of the colleges, which feature a mix of teaching, research and service components appropriate to each type;
    • (IV)(5) Respect the autonomy and integrity of its constituent institutions, in particular, maintain local control along with regional and state-wide cooperation and only on that basis, further sharing of resources; and
    • (IV)(6) Respect shared governance, which ranges from faculty control of curriculum to administration control of executive appointments, with appropriate consultation at all levels, including budgets.
  • Blitz stated we are at a crisis level at Western, we have significant shared governance issues here, and there are also significant shared governance issues at Eastern.
  • The Board has finally agreed to regularize two joint meetings annually. This will be posted on the same BOR website where Board meetings are posted. D. Blitz continues to meet regularly with the Chair of the Board, Chair of Finance and Infrastructure Committee, and System Provost. These are relationships we need to continue to develop.
• F. Latour solicited questions and comments on the FAC report.
  • F. Latour pointed out the definition of systemness on Wiktionary.
  • Chat question from Sen. Boone:  David: Was the university you are mentioning where this ultimatum was given in the CSU system or elsewhere? (“cut part-time faculty or cut programs).  David confirmed it was in the system.
  • Sen. Best asked if there are systemwide implications to cutting part-time faculty or current programs.  His program, for example, relies heavily on part-time faculty.  D. Blitz responded that he believes it is up to our administration.  These actions are being taken at at least two other institutions.  It is clear we need to protect the programs, majors and minors we have here at Central. F. Best asked if there has been a forum to ask questions of our deans. D. Blitz said he only knows what’s happening at two other institutions and it is worth raising the matter on our campus now because it is a contradictory situation.  There is the pressure to save money. The Board is talking about a $105M deficit which is largely being covered by the State, but the questions of how to deal with the problem of reducing budgets of higher education state institutions at a time when the state is overflowing with money.  That is why the FAC and BOR are collaborating to advocate for full funding for public higher education.
    • Provost Kostelis said she believes a lot of this is coming from the memo that President Cheng sent to all 17 presidents.  As President Toro has said, we are looking for ways to reduce costs and raise revenue.  Some other campuses are talking about cutting part-time faculty and programs, but CCSU is not there.  Management wants to take a collaborative approach to finding solutions so we do not have to go down that path.
    • Sen. Best stated his appreciation for hearing that this is not on the CCSU agenda at this time.
    • President Latour indicated that it is not clear that cutting programs will yield the desired results, since revenue is cut at the same time.
    • Sen. Zadi asked if money is saved by attacking programs? Is it through salary savings?  If not, how?  F. Latour said it is his understanding it allows the university to cut the number of lines in the program, and the first to get cut are part-time faculty. Savings from not purchasing equipment, for example, are minimal.  What needs to also be considered is the revenue that is lost and the choice that a certain knowledge base will no longer be studied.
    • Sen. Best noted we serve a lot of students from different backgrounds.  When we eliminate expenses, we eliminate a pedagogy and the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge.
• In summary D. Blitz said faculty need to remain alert and prepared.  Budgets rightly need to be balanced, but we also need appropriate funding for state higher education institutions.  We must also be able to maintain our mission and our autonomy.

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• Last week everyone should have received an invitation from the Office of the President about the joint Open Forum with President Toro on December 1st.  Questions will be solicitated from those attending the forum and watching the livestream. Everyone was strongly encouraged to attend. President Toro will provide an update on plans for the Spring semester.
• Next week is the last week of classes.  There will be a Senate meeting on Monday and the agenda will be longer than others.  Among other things, approving candidates for gradation will be on the agenda.  The Graduate Studies committee will also provide its semi-annual report. In addition, there is a plan to have Prof. Kathy Bantley attend to discuss the current status of the Task Force on the College of Health and Rehabilitation Science. 
• The University has received a request from a student for a report on the DFW rates for all courses for the last five years.  That request has been referred to the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA).  The University attorney has stated we cannot ignore that request.  The question is, what should that report look like?  The current plan is to produce a document that lists all the courses with numbers up to 499 (undergraduate courses), with at least 10 student enrolled in the past 5 years, along with the DFW rates (percentage of students that includes D+/D-/F or a Withdrawal.) The plan is to create and release the list next week.  At the same time, the Senate President has suggested that this week be used as a comment period.  Comments/ concerns can be sent to F. Latour by email.  Comments will be compiled and forwarded to Y. Kirby in OIRA.
  • Chat question (Sen. Donohue):  Is this a FOIA request? Response: Y. Kirby said it is not a FOIA request, but University Counsel has advised the request should be satisfied.
  • Chat question (Sen. Savatarova): Who requested the report?  Response: F. Latour indicated the request was made by a current student.
  • F. Latour commented that some schools post this information on their websites.
  • Chat comment (Sen. Bray): According to an email from Dr. Minkler, it was a request came from the Student Government Association. Response: Y. Kirby said she confused two requests; this request came from a current student.
  • Chat comment (Dr. Minkler): I did write that in an email but with my previous understanding that it came from the GSA.  As I also stated in my email, this was (and is) a rapidly developing situation.
  • D. Blitz commented that this is a meaningless list because some students drop courses because they only wanted to “try out” the course and always intended to drop it.  Fs, he said, also materialize because of many, many reasons.  He argued that aggregating this data misconstrues the data. He also opposes listing specific courses, because some are inherently more difficulty than others.  He also suggested that courses be aggregated by level (i.e., 100-level, 200-level, etc.).  In sum, he stated he feels that it is a mistake to pander to this request and secondly, the list should not be broken down in such detail that it stigmatizes individual faculty or courses.
  • Question to the Senate president privately: Will the date be broken down by gender?  Response: No, F. Latour said.
  • Comment: Sen. Donohue said she has learned recently that if it is a formal FOIA request, it should go through a formal process, including charging the party for the time spent pulling the information together.  It is not that we are trying not to be transparent, but that there is a process to be followed.  Otherwise, the number of requests could get out of hand.
  • University Counsel Votto commented: (1) even though not filed as a FOIA request, it does not mean we can refuse to answer it, however, she is working on establishing a process.  She referred people to information on the University Counsel’s website. (2) on the matter of charging, by State statute, CCSU can only charge for formatting and making copies.
  • Chat comment (Sen. Phillips): Isn't the underlying concern of student is retention success? Should we focus on retention of students?
  • F. Latour said he will take note of all concerns and send them to Y. Kirby.
  • MOTION (Y. Oyewumi): To require that the student make a formal FOIA request.  The motion was not seconded.
  • Chat comment (Sen. Barr): We could provide paper comments of grade sheets with student names and id #s redacted along with names of faculty.
  • Sen. Phillips commented that no one is addressing the issue of retention.  In the end, students are struggling.  We are going to have to address this.
  • Chat comment (D. Blitz): Would we honor a request to know the number of pages in term papers for each course and class.  Response: Y. Kirby commented she would have no way of doing this.
  • Comment sent to F. Latour privately: Will it be sorted by year and school?  Response:  F. Latour said no, it would be one aggregated list.
  • Comment sent to F. Latour privately: How will preparatory courses taken at community colleges factor in?  Response: F. Latour said that the concerns being raised are likely because of context and he has no idea how the information will be used.  We don’t know why students don’t succeed in certain courses.  A D/F/W rate does not address high school or community college preparation, COVID, etc.
  • Chat comment (D. Blitz): Aggregating over five years includes the pandemic which has skewed numbers.  The whole project is worthless on a course by course basis - but could be done by level. (100, 200 etc.) and by year.
  • F. Latour reiterated that concerns be sent to him by the end of this week.
  • Chat comment (Sen. Phillips): When Carl was here, he called out one of my colleagues in Anthropology who taught a 90 plus class and many students did not show up. He had a policy that missing 5 classes meant failure. This stigmatized a great teacher.

3. Committee Reports

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

• An interim report on what the task force has been working on was shared and discussed.
• K. Bantley began with what she terms “the bad news”: (1) An incorrect document was sent to Fred last week. That was an old document; the one being shown in the meeting today is a revised document.  This is a draft document. (2) The Task Force wanted to submit its recommendation to the Senate by the end of this semester – what departments should be included in the school – but it is not ready to do so.  Seventeen programs have met with the task force in one way or another to express interest in the new college and/or community clinic and that has taken much of the task force’s time.  Anyone who still wants to meet with the task force was invited to reach out to K. Bantley.
• K. Bantley outlined the plan for the Spring: (1) return to the Senate at the first or second meeting; (2) for the 17 programs that have already reached out, we will contact them to ask them to prepare a write-up on what the department is thinking about inclusion in the new school; (3) the task force will invite some other faculty to meet with them. And then, the last gathering of information will be in February and the task force will deliberate in February and March. Those recommendations will be written up over Spring Break and be on the agenda of the April 3rd Senate meeting.  A final version of the recommendations should be ready by March 1st.  The Provost is not going to the BOR until she sees what the Senate and task force comes up with.  The task force is made up of 10 people: 7 faculty and 3 others.  Since the announcement of the proposed new college, the task force as a whole or in subgroups have had over 60 meetings with faculty groups.  She asked senators to bring back to their departments her request for people to reach out to her.
• The community clinic, which the task force has to make a recommendation on as well, has been discussed since last May. Nursing, Exercise Science and Social Work have indicated what their departments could do.  It was agreed we could do a pilot this Spring (in the second half of the semester) in the form of pop-up clinics.  This will be taken very slowly.  It will have to do with what our students can do, what lawyers have cleared us to do, and what the community needs.  We are waiting for feedback from university attorneys.  Some people are concerned with liability, and the task force is as well.
• On page 7: the Department of Communication will be integrally involved in the new clinic with regard to health communication. They will be asked to submit a write-up as well.
• On page 13: there is a timeline with regard to the new college and community clinic.  We are looking for this to come into being over the next 5 years. The community clinic has a community advisory board, and CCSU faculty and staff are involved, through direct communication with the task force and through the Senate.
• Sen. Emeagwali congratulated the chair of the task force.  She asked, “where is the funding going to come from?”  K. Bantley responded by stating that the president is looking at a combination of public and private funding and asset reallocation.  The UPBC will be consulted as well.  She stated that the task force is not charged with developing a budget.
• Chat question: The UPBC is entering the project a little on the late side.  When is this going to the UPBC? K. Bantley: The Provost is going to begin talking with the UPBC at their meeting tomorrow.  To be clear, the clinic can begin before we have the new college because we already have the students and knowledge on campus. F. Latour asked: “shouldn’t it go to the UPBC before it comes to the Senate so that the Senate can see what the UPBC’s recommendations are?  K. Kostelis responded, saying the task force is making recommendations, and in order for the UPBC to work on something, they need the task force’s recommendations. K. Bantley noted that as departments are expressing interest in being involved, some have noted costs associated with that they could do.
• Chat question: What does the comment in the report “Dinner with ER hire” refer to? K. Bantley said that one of the big concerns is who is going to run the clinic? We have to have someone, a medical person (e.g., medical doctor, APRN, etc.) to run the clinic.  A potential emergency hire was brought in for a meeting. The departments of Communication and World Languages and the Gerontology program were also involved.
• Comment in chat from Sen. Bigelow: Based on the work in the SUOAF bargaining unit, it sounds like this would be a SUOAF position.  There isn't even a job description for this role, that I know of. K. Kostelis responded saying this would be a teaching faculty role because the person would be working with students and not just doing administrative work.
• Comment from Chat asked by F. Latour: Where is the money for the emergency hire coming from?  K. Kostelis said funds would be reallocated. This will be taken to UPBC.
• F. Latour asked, “who prepared this document?” K. Kostelis said that part of the document was what the president presented to the campus community in September 2021. The things highlighted today were a small section of what the task force has added to the document. We had less than two seeks in Summer 2021 for President Toro to prepare to meet with a major donor. That is when some of the document was put together. It was after that meeting that the task force was established.
• FAC Rep. Blitz asked two questions:
  • On Page 8 under cardiovascular health and education: you mention stress tests.  These are normally done under the supervision of a Board-certified cardiologist because one could go into cardiac arrest when taking this test.  Is this the kind of thing we would be doing?  Would we have cardiologists on site?  K. Bantley: everything in here is a proposal. We are not married to this. Some departments have stated they can do stress tests. Certainly, we will not do anything that is illegal. The attorneys are reviewing this. This would be something done way down the line.
  • Have you looked at SCSU’s new program?  K. Bantley: the biggest difference is our experiential learning component. We also have the rehabilitation science aspect involved. Our Doctor of Physical Therapy program will be part of it as well.  She also noted that some of the concerns the task force has heard repeatedly is ‘are we moving too fast?’  There is a push with regard to a timeline is because someone will beat us to the punch and we will not have an opportunity at all. If we sit on this, we will lose our opportunity. We are well-aware of what SCSU is doing and we are able to distinguish ourselves.
• Sen. Best agreed with Sen. Emeagwali’s compliments, but echoed FAC Rep. Blitz’s concern about funding. He asked, “Will assets be reallocated from academic programs?” He turned to the deans in attendance, the Provost and the President for an answer to that question. Also, what more can be said about the donor?
  • K. Bantley: We met with 17 programs and a lot of those programs were talking about creating more interdisciplinary programs.
  • R. Wolff: A lot of programs in CLASS see the opportunity to create new courses and specializations. How can we rethink tenure track positions? In many ways, this is a growth opportunity, but it also speaks to the core mission of the university: to serve the communities around us.
• Chat question from L. Bigelow: As tuition continues to go up and we face deficits of over $5M in FY24 and FY25, how will we justify this to students and parents of current and prospective students?
  • K. Bantley: opportunities abound.  There is not one discipline that doesn’t have a stake in healthcare. We are also serving the community. The whole university will be involved.
  • Interim Dean Mulrooney: This is a great opportunity.  A lot of the departments would be coming out of SEPS. The budgets that support these departments would also be going over to the new school.  Yes, there will be a new infrastructure to support, but even in my own school, I have lines that I am questioning whether they are still needed.
• Chat comment from M. Fallon: With all due respect, I recognize the good that can be done here. I do want to acknowledge that it seems that the recurring infrastructure costs (e.g., Deans, support staff) would be coming out of the Academic Affairs budget. While this may be a fantastic growth opportunity that we should support, let us acknowledge that it could take some shared sacrifice to get there.
  • K. Bantley: Absolutely. When we have a better idea and more focus with regard to the recommendations, there will need to be some tough discussions.
  • Chat comment via F. Latour: Has there been a risk analysis of the community clinic and new college?  K. Bantley: Yes. We have hired outside counsel. In regard to the new college, she asked what risks the person asking the question has in mind? F. Latour said that there is a risk anytime a new college is created. K. Bantley: “If you build it, they will come.” We are meeting the needs of the State.  She said she could not see any downside.
• Sen. Blitz: information is important. Sometimes there are questions like “if we are adopting more children, how are we going to take care of the children we already have?” He stated he was pleased to hear what Dean Wolff said.  He cited the irony of hearing about this at the same time we heard that some universities were seeing faculty and programs cuts.
  • K. Bantley: if you need me to come every meeting in Spring, I will.  It is purely coincidental we are hearing these things simultaneously.
• Chat question from D. Blitz: It would be help if there were a transition plan - steps to take year by year to 2030.
• Chat comment from J. Mulrooney: right now, the state needs 1000+ more nurses than all of the programs in Connecticut are producing.  The state also needs more social workers.
• Chat question from G. Emeagwali: Should the history department introduce courses on the history of medicine, etc.?
• What role will the DNAP play in the new school?  K. Bantley: We are still talking with them. We don’t yet know if they will go into this new school. DNAP gets lost in biology. If we are trying to get attention to some of these programs, they could potentially have more support in the new school with regard to facilities, labs, simulation rooms, etc.  There is potential. It is a health-related field. Why wouldn’t it move to the new school?  We have met with the Biology department twice. We did just learn that DNAP could do some of these basic assessments, but right now there is no talk of the DNAP program being part of the clinic.
• Chat comment from K. Gonzales: Honing preoperative assessments through physical evaluations is a critical component for nurse anesthetists.
• K. Bantley: Tom Burkholder will be coming to meet with the task force this week. Others wishing to meet with the task force should email her.

b. Graduate Studies Committee (L. Jacobson)

• L. Jacobson briefly summarized the report circulated with the agenda.
• F. Latour recapped concerns about the dismantling of the School of Graduate Studies and asked the Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) for feedback.
• L. Jacobson added that the GSC received an email that outlined the conversations that took place around the changes.  The Provost, President and AVP Minkler met with deans, department chairs and program coordinators over the course of the semester and at each meeting the Provost shared a series of slides. The graduate program coordinators had the opportunity to hear from the Provost about the overall intentions and potentially express their thoughts and concerns around the changes.  The feedback received after those meetings was that they are glad to have been heard, but while they were happy that took place, it did not make up for not being asked in the first place. They would have liked to provide their input before changes to took place.  L. Jacobson’s observations of these meetings is that the colleges being so different, not everyone reviews things in the same way and not everyone has the same feeling.  Feedback from people in smaller programs said moving things into the dean’s office means you have to have a dean that thinks your program is worth spending time on.  The bulk of the conversations focused on enrollment and admissions, which are huge, but it does not get at some of the concerns. We will note know what the challenges will be until we move forward with the infrastructure in place now.  Some people are now content because they have been hard; others feel it is not a safe space and they have lost trust for the administration because they were not consulted.  Others feel threatened.  The Provost shared that graduate programming is an important piece at the university and L. Jacobson said she hopes that is the case.
• F. Latour invited K. Kostelis to speak. K. Kostelis said she welcomes additional feedback. S. Minkler has been in the role of overseeing Graduate Studies.  She is happy to take feedback on his title.  He certainly carries the responsibility for Graduate Studies.  In addition to moving support into the dean’s offices, S. Minkler continues to carry the same structure. In a previous Senate meeting, it was indicated we would roll back and pause; we have done that.  If there are other areas that people feel need to be rolled back, please reach out to the Provost, S. Minkler or L. Jacobson.  We want to strengthen Graduate Studies.  In no way has Academic Affairs wanted to dissolve Graduate Studies.
• L. Jacobson will distribute the letter that came from the Provost to the GSC.  People should not suffer in silence; they should reach out to the Provost to provide feedback.
• S. Minkler added that he appreciates that the sequence of conversations was out of order, but we cannot time-travel.  The conversations were productive. Each school treats graduate programs differently, with support from him, Amy Gagnon and Jillian Holt. He said we have not dropped a beat.  He has been meeting with the programs that have asked to meet with him and that has been helpful to him. He is working with them to put some changes and considerations forward.  His commitment to graduate education has not diminished in any way and he welcomes working with faculty to build-out additional graduate programs.

c. CCSU Foundation Grant Advisory Committee (B. Lopez)

• The informational report of the CCSU Foundation Grant Advisory Committee was shared. The report was accepted without questions or comments.

4. New Business

a. Approval of Candidates for Graduation

• Dean Wolff made a motion to approve the Fall 2022 degree candidates for the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Fine Arts, Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of General Studies of the Carol A. Ammon College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences on behalf of the faculty, subject to their satisfactory completion of all requirements for graduation. Seconded. Motion approved.
  
• Interim Dean Frank made a motion to approve the Fall 2022 degree candidates for the Bachelor of Science degree of the School of Business, as presented on the graduate list, on behalf of the faculty, subject to their satisfactory completion of all requirements for graduation. Seconded. Motion approved.
  
• Interim Dean Mulrooney made a motion to approve the Fall 2022 degree for the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Science in Education, Bachelor of Science in Nursing and Bachelor of General Studies candidates of the School of Education and Professional Studies, as presented on the graduation list, on behalf of the faculty, subject to their satisfactory completion of all requirements for graduation. Seconded. Motion approved.
• Interim Dean Minkler made a motion to approve the Fall 2022 degree candidates for the degrees of Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Arts of the School of Engineering, Science, and Technology, as presented on the graduation list, on behalf of the faculty, subject to their satisfactory completion of all requirements for graduation. Seconded. Motion approved.
• Dr. Minkler made a motion to approve the Fall 2022 and Winter 2023 degree candidates for the Master of Arts, Master of Science, Master of Arts in Teaching and Doctor of Nurse Anesthesia Practice on behalf of the faculty of the School of Graduate Studies, as presented on the graduation list, subject to their satisfactory completion of all requirements for graduation. Seconded. Motion approved unanimously.

5. Adjournment

• F. Latour called for any questions or concerns before adjourning.
• FAC Rep Blitz asked for the Senate Steering Committee to arrange for the Chief Budget Officer to do a presentation on the university budget so we can all be knowledgeable about our revenues and expenses as we go into the Spring semester.  This would be helpful to him in terms of the FAC and also to the Chair of the BOR’s Finance and Infrastructure Committee.
  
• Motion to adjourn (F. Best). Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m.