Faculty Senate

Minutes - November 14, 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.; Boncoddo, R.; Boone, N.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Cole, E.; Donohue, P.; Duquette, J.; Elfant, A.; Emeagwali, G.; Farhat, J.; Farrish, K.; Foshay, J.; Foster, P.; French, J.; Garbovskiy, Y.; Gonzalez, K.; Hazan, S.; Heinen, E.; Hernandez, R.; Horrax, S.; Jackson, M.; Kapper, M.; Karas, R.; King, A.; Langevin, K.; Love, K.; Lui, R.; Martin, K.; Matthews, S.; Matzke, B.; McCarthy, M.; Meng, P.; Mitchell, D.; Moriarty, M.; Ning, W.; O'Connor, J.; Ofray, J.; Oyewumi, Y.;  Paolina, J.; Patterson, Y.; Recoder-Nunez, L.; Rivera, T.; Rodgers-Tonge, D.; Salama, T.; Santilli, M.; Savatorova, V.; Schenck, S.; Schmidt, S.; Seamans-Frizell, S.; Smith, R.; Spinelli, A.; Styrczula, S.; Sylvester, C.; Tellier, A.; Villanti, S.; Wang, W.; Zadi, S.; Zhao, S.; Zhou, B.

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

Parliamentarian: not present

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Bucher, L.; Byrd Danso, K.; Diaz, D.; Fernandez, V.; Kalder, R.; Kirby, Y.;  Larsen, K.; Merenstein, B.; N.; Phillips, E.; Pincince, T.; Robinson, C.; Suski-Lenczewski, A.; Szwez, J.; Tully, J.;  Votto, S.; Wright, C.

1. Minutes

• Minutes of October 31, 2022

The minutes of October 31, 2022 were approved.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

• The Chapter meeting tentatively scheduled for November 22 has been rescheduled to the following week, Tuesday, November 29. It will be held virtually at 12:15 p.m.
• The AAUP holiday get-together will be held December 9 at Alvarium. Details will be sent out shortly.
• There is a lot going on at WCSU. The clock is ticking. If someone from AAUP asks faculty to take a trip down to Western, please put on a red T-shirt and go to Danbury.  It is important. The more pressure put on the WCSU administration the better off we will all be.  The situation there is bad. The solution is not addressing the problem and would give administrations across CSCU the green-light to cancel whatever programs they do not like.
• The final version of the contract is now on the CSU-AAUP website.
• Question from the Chat (J. Farhat): In reference to the October 6 email, which stated "Many of the questions that were submitted to AAUP for the Open Forum remain to be addressed.  We are not going to let those questions remain unanswered and will be putting together a document with responses from the administration.  President Toro has confirmed that they will be answering in the next two weeks."  Did you get a reply?
• T. Burkholder: AAUP has not received answers to all of the questions. AAUP will follow up on that.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (L. Bigelow)

• The SUOAF Chapter Executive Board met with most of AAUP’s Executive Board last week to identify areas for collaboration in addressing campus climate. More dialog is planned.
• SUOAF leadership has a second meeting with a focus group of chapter members tomorrow. The group is working on identifying steps to take in the immediate future to address the negative impacts campus culture has had on members, as both professionals and human beings.  Safety – specifically psychological safety – has been identified as the first and most important issue that needs to be addressed.
• The final SUOAF contract is now on the SUOAF website.

c. SGA (O. Olamuyiwa)

• The SGA has been working on some initiatives. At the last meeting, a report on a recent survey was shared on behalf of SGA. The results revealed students do not favor requiring PIN numbers.  The survey did not ask students why. The SGA is working on how to better assist with retention.  Better advising has come up.
• SGA is also trying to determine how to increase scholarship support of students and is in the process of figuring out how best to provide this support.  In the past, SGA has supported study abroad, leadership and the arts.
• SGA just began working on a plan to host international students over Thanksgiving Break. If something cannot be done this year, SGA plans to work on this next year.
• Comment:  Sen. Best noted that there are community groups, such as churches, that also look to host people during the holidays.
• Comment: President Latour suggested that the SGA explore in more depth why students express a desire for better advising, while a majority do not support the PIN requirement.  The two seem to go hand-in-hand. He would like to learn what students would perceive as an improvement.
  • O. Olamuyiwa noted that the survey results showed about 200 students were in favor of the PIN system, while over 700 students were against having the PIN requirement in place. He committed to exploring the disconnect between better advising and no PIN requirement.
• Comment: Sen. Al-Masoud noted that advising is not only about course registration.  It is also about career advice, graduate school, and developing a professional relationship between the faculty and student.  He asked whether this has been taken into consideration.
  • O. Olamuyiwa indicated that they have not done a deep dive on this and could explore a campaign that includes this information.
• Comment: Sen. Elfant commented that SGA should clarify what “advising” means.
• Comment in the Chat (Sen. Foster): “FWIW, I had four students drop in today for advising. It's too early to say, but it looks like many are coming in despite not needing PINs.”
• Comment: Dr. Kalder noted a lot of people are coming to see her for advising instead of going to their advisors, and these students are in need of advising.  She stated that she feels that we have a responsibility for giving young adults advising in order to stop them from making mistakes that could cost them time, money and effort. She stated that not all faculty are good advisors, but those who are should be identified and compensated for good advising.

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

• There was a mini conference online on November 4. Over 150 faculty from across the system attended. Three issues were covered : (1) ACME – there was a presentation from the mathematics side. It is extremely complicated. We are moving from the simplistic policy of the Ojakian/Gates administration to a recognition of the complexity of the situation.  This has an implication for CCSU because it will determine whether community college transfer students to CCSU succeed in Math and English. (2) Department Chairs at the Community Colleges – This is also undergoing a transition from an early decision simply not to have them, to some agreement that each campus have a small number of department chairs. It seems that larger community colleges will have more than 6 departments, and smaller community colleges will have fewer.  (3) WCSU. This is a stressful time for the WCSU faculty. There will be more information shared on this at the next Senate meeting. 
• The FAC has a meeting on Friday, November 18. The first part will be a joint meeting with the BOR. This will be the second time the bodies meet jointly in many years, and the first with the current administration.  Full funding for higher education will be the single agenda item. There has been a decline in enrollment, due in part to changing demographics and also post-COVID.  There has also been an increase in costs. We are seeing deficits of about $100M for the System as a whole in FY23 and FY24, $60M for the four-year universities. The return of Gov. Lamont’s administration with double-digit majorities is a favorable circumstance for public higher education.  The surplus and full Rainy Day Fund are also favorable, particularly the surplus.  Could some of that go to higher education? The System is perpetually on the verge of fiscal exigency/severe financial crisis. Specific objectives that lead toward increasing funding for public higher education need to be identified. The second part of the joint meeting will address shared governance, the department chair issue at the community colleges and the situation at WCSU.
• D. Blitz will make available to the Senate the financial information that the CSCU CFO has provided in advance of the November 18th meeting.
• Question: President Latour asked if the November 4th meeting was recorded. D. Blitz said that he will check into that and respond.
• Question: Sen. Hazan asked about “full funding” from the state.  Is this synonymous with free tuition?
  • D. Blitz said there are two issues: PACT, which is now available for the community colleges only, and whether this should be extended to the universities as well.  The topic of the meeting is not related to “last tuition dollar support” but to meeting the operational needs of the various institutions.

e. President of the Senate (F. Latour)

• If anyone has any questions about what is happening at the other CSUs, please let F. Latour know by this Thursday, since the Senate Presidents are meeting.
  • D. Blitz commented that ECSU has issued a report on campus climate at Eastern. He would like to hear more. He would also like to find out what is happening at SCSU. Conversations between Senate and Union presidents may be helpful.
• An Open Forum with President Toro is planned before the semester ends.  This will be a joint forum with the Senate and University president.
• People who are on committees may start hearing from the Senate in the near future so that we can get a list of who is currently chairing each committee.
• If you are on a committee that has not met yet, it would be a good idea to send a reminder to the committee to see if the committee will be meeting.
• This is a NECHE year. There is an interim report due to NECHE. It is important for the university to be on track with all that we need to do, particularly assessment.  Fred expressed a desire to hear from the Assessment Committee on the current state of affairs regarding assessment.

3. Elections

a. Reminder - Election of Promotion and Tenure Committee and others

• The Elections Committee sent a ballot to everyone for election of the Promotion and Tenure Committee along with a number of other committees and the approval/disapproval of the proposed amendment to the Senate Constitution.  It was sent last Thursday. Senators should use that ballot to cast their vote.  The deadline to vote is November 3.

b. Enrollment Management Council

• There is a group known as the Enrollment Management Council (EMC) that is supposed to include a faculty representative from each of the four schools.  The University is looking to replenish the Council with new faculty from three of the four schools (SEPS already has a member).  The Senate Steering Committee proposed issuing a call for nominations and having the elections done by the Senate.  Fred invited any member of management to add commentary.
  
  • President Toro said the EMC has been in place since the Summer of 2017 and it is the body in which all the offices involved in the recruitment and retention of students are represented and where conversations about items that will impact recruitment and retention strategies are considered. She noted that it is an operational body. That means that decisions are made in the Council that will be implemented right away.  Dr. Toro stated it is not a strategic council, however it has been very helpful to have faculty representation from each one of the schools.  She said one thing is important to keep in mind: faculty members who participate in this council will be compensated or rewarded because they may be asked to work on follow-up initiatives. That compensation could come in the form of release time. She said it is important – as part of improving the communication within the campus on what is going on between the administration and faculty – that whoever is representing a school has to be a liaison to the dean and department chairs in their school and those conversations have to be two-way so that everyone can be informed about what is being discussed in EMC and feedback on actions and initiatives that are about to be implemented can be gathered. Dr. Toro cited as an example the change in the format of Open House.
  • F. Latour shared the results of the solicitation seeking interested faculty from the three schools in need of representation on the EMC:
    • CLASS: James Austin (English) and Carlos Liard-Muriente (Economics)
    • Business: Michael Gendron (Management Information Systems) and Sarah Stookey (Management & Organization)
    • SEST: Barry Westcott (Chemistry & Biochemistry) and Ned Moore (Engineering)
  • Fred said there are two options: to use the poll tool during a meeting or have a ballot sent out by the Elections Committee.
  • L. Frank noted she had sent a third name to F. Latour from another Business faculty member. (Decorti Rodgers-Tonge, Accounting).
  • Fred asked about the date of the next ECM meeting.  Dr. Toro noted it meets biweekly and the next meeting is November 9.  Since the meeting is not immediately, Fred proposed that the election be done by ballot sent by the Elections Committee. There was no objection.

5. New Business

a. Proposal for the Advisory Committee on CSU Professorship bylaws

• F. Latour presented the proposal to amend the bylaws of the Advisory Committee on the CSU Professorship that was distributed with the agenda. The idea is that there are from time to time, situations where people can apply for something if they have five, eight or ten years in a rank. The understanding has been that as long as you meet the requirement before the benefit (e.g., tenure) is awarded, you qualify.  This is not the case with the CSU Professorship, which states that all nominees must have ten years at the university.  This is in the CCSU bylaws, and each campus has different bylaws.  The Senate has the ability to change the rules.  A question has been called this year regarding a particular nominee.  According to the Parliamentarian, it is implied that nominees must have ten years at CCSU.  The proposed bylaws change brings this committee’s process in line with all the other, similar processes on campus in which someone may apply for something so long as they will meet the requirements by the time the benefit/honor/award is bestowed.
• Sen. Martin asked what would happen if the Committee began its work in September. 
  • F. Latour clarified with President Toro that the CSU Professorship begins in a Fall semester.
  • Sen. Best said it is his understanding, as a CSU Professor and having been on the committee, that Dr. Toro is correct. 
• Sen. Amaya asked if there is a reason this change is coming before the Senate now.  Is it for a case for this year, or is this a general change? She asked about the motivation for bringing this forth this year.
  • F. Latour said that the original wording has been in place from the start.  The motivation for making the change this year is to bring it into alignment with other similar processes on campus. President Latour explained that opportunities to apply for CSU Professor do not come up annually or frequently.
• Sen. Arena explained that the reason this proposal has come up has to do with the fact that there is a member in his department who is exceptional and the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department does not feel that a matter of a few months should preclude this person from being considered and potentially awarded the CSU Professorship.  He also noted that none of the other campuses have the ten year requirement and only Western’s bylaws note any reference to length of employment and in that case, it is only looked at when there is otherwise a tie. 
• President Latour said that 11 years ago, there was a faculty member who wanted to join the CSU Professor Committee and the rules require that (1) they have tenure and (2) are elected to the committee.  The question that came up at the time was whether this person could go up for election to the committee.  The ruling made at the time was in favor of the person’s candidacy because they would have held tenure before they began their on the committee.  He also noted that the interpretation has not been consistent.
• Sen. Al-Masoud commended that the deadline for application was November 1.
• Dean Mulrooney addressed the comment that there is some leeway for changing the rules.  He commented on the person at-question being relatively new. He asked if the CSU Professor is a life-long title? He pondered that perhaps this should be a 3-year title?
  • F. Latour noted that we do not have the ability to limit the title for three years; it is in AAUP contract as a lifetime appointment.
• Sen. Martin commented that this appears to be a slippery slope. She feels the ten years is pretty clearly stated.
• Comment in the Chat (J. Farhat): “So, can we use "5.3.5 Comparable Standards" too. Since we are using P&T , As is true for promotions.” 
  • F. Latour said ‘no’ since that pertains to promotion.
  • Sen. Farhat commented that we are trying to bring something into common standards. He commented that this is a career-long appointment and does not come up very frequently. He agreed that this is a slippery slope.
• FAC Rep. Blitz made two points: (1) maybe increasing the number of CSU Professors should be raised during the next contract negotiations and (2) why would an Associate Professor be eligible? Shouldn’t they first hold the title of Professor?
  • F. Latour noted that a member of the selection committee asked the same question. Sen. Al-Masoud agreed and asked why not consider Assistant Professors with tenure, too?  Fred commented that someone also asked if you could go from Associate to CSU Professor, isn’t this committee usurping the role of the P&T Committee?
  • FAC Rep. Blitz noted he is not a voting member of the Senate, but suggested splitting the proposal.  F. Latour said this could also go back to the committee.
• Sen. Andreoletti asked whether the rules are now being changed so that a current nominee can be considered? She stated she wanted to be sure she knows what she is voting on. She asked if this has ever come up before.
  • F. Latour noted the small sample size; we have only had two other opportunities to appoint someone. Carrie asked if someone could answer her question.
• Sen. Arena said we should not forget that the person at question is exceptional, exceeding even what is required to be promoted to full professor.  
• Sen. Emeagwali stated that she feels it is curious that someone who is Associate Professor wants to be CSU Professor. She would not support that.
  • MOTION: to amend the proposal to strike associate professor and replace it with full professor.
• Sen. Arenas: what about the time requirement? F. Latour: that is still on the floor.
• Sen. Farrish commented that this is a substantive amendment, and she would like the opportunity to take this back to her department.
• Sen. Zadi asked to explain the rationale for allowing associate professors to apply? 
  • F. Latour said there was originally no rank requirement. When the number of years question came up, so did the rank question. This question came up about ten years ago.
• Sen. Bigelow asked whether someone can apply or if they have to be nominated?
  • Sen. Martin clarified that people can self-nominate.
• Sen. Arena shared the criteria from the other CSU’s. Western’s bylaws say the criterion about years in service should only be used when two candidates are tie. Southern requires full professor status (as well as an earned doctorate). Eastern’s criteria is silent on time requirements.
• Sen. Martin asked if they could apply if they have not yet been promoted to full professor. F. Latour said no, because they would not know if they were getting the promotion.
• MOTION: To postpone the entire proposal to the next meeting (Bray/Ofray)
  • Sen. Arenas asked if the proposal passes, would it be retroactive. Sen. Duquette said ‘no.’
  • Sen. Foster asked whether anyone on the selection committee is unclear about how to interpret the ten years.
    • President Latour said that everyone on the committee was clear, and that the person in question is ineligible. The Department nominating the individual brought the matter of the ambiguity of the ten years to the Senate, arguing that being “in their tenth year” qualifies.
  • Sen. Al-Masoud noted that changing the committee’s bylaws to suit a current applicant is problematic.
  • Sen. Duquette: noted the Senate should deal with the amendment before dealing with the proposal.  
  • Sen. Andreoletti called the question, ending the debate on the proposal. 
  • MOTION: to end debate. Motion passed.
• Motion to Postpone passed.
• The matter will be postponed until the November 28th Senate meeting under Unfinished Business.

b. Request for an exception to the rule on chairs representing a department at the Faculty Senate

• The Department of Anthropology has requested an exception to the Senate Constitution, as recently amended. The Department, which only has three full-time faculty right now, is asking to allow its Chair to represent the department in the Senate for the 2022-2023 academic year.
• Motion: to approve the proposal (Farhat/Foster). Motion passed.

6. Adjournment

• Motion to adjourn (F. Best). Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.