Faculty Senate

Minutes - November 28, 2022 - 3:05pm - Online through WebEx

CCSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Present: Acharya, K.; Al-Masoud, N.; Amaya, L.; Andreoletti, C.; Arena, J.; Barr, B.; Best, F.; Bigelow, L.; Boone, N.; Boscarino, N.; Bray, A.; Broulik, W.; Cole, E.; Donohue, P.; Duquette, J.; Elfant, A.; Emeagwali, G.; Fallon, M.; Farhat, J.; Farrish, K.; Foshay, J.; Foster, P.; Gamache, J.; Garbovskiy, Y.; Gardner, P.; Gonzalez, K.; Hazan, S.; Heinen, E.; Hernandez, R.; Horrax, S.; Jackson, M.; Kapper, M.; Karas, R.; Kean, K.; King, A.; Kulesza, M.; Langevin, K.; Lentino, J.; Love, K.; Lui, R.; Martin, K.; Matthews, S.; Matzke, B.; Meng, P.; 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.; Salama, T.; Savatorova, V.; Schenck, S.; Schmidt, S.; Seamans-Frizell, S.; Smith, R.; Sohn, Y.M.; Spinelli, A.; Sugg, K.; Sylvester, C.; Tellier, A.; Villanti, S.; Zabihimayvan, M.; Zadi, S.; Zhao, S.; Zhou, B.

Ex-Officio: Blitz, D.; Burkholder, T.; Frank, L.; Minkler, S.; Mulrooney, J.; Toro, Z.

 

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Latour, F.

Guests: Bucher, L.; Byrd Danso, K.; Kalder, R.; Kirby, Y.; Kirk, B.; Jacobson, L.; Larsen, K.; McGrath, K.; Merenstein, B.; Misra, K.; Moore, N.; Nadolny, M.; Pincince, T.; Robinson, C.; Shen, X.; Suski-Lenczewski, A.; Tully, J.; Veloria, C.; Votto, S.; Wright, C.

1. Minutes

• Minutes of November 14, 2022

The minutes of November 14, 2022 were approved.

2. Announcements:

a. AAUP President (T. Burkholder)

• An invitation will be sent this week for the December 9th AAUP end-of-the-year holiday social. It will be held from 3-6 p.m. at Alvarium. RSVPs are required.
• The next Chapter Chat is tomorrow. It will be virtual.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME (S. Villanti)

• The SUOAF Holiday Party will be held on December 8th at noon. An invitation went out to members this afternoon. RSVPs are required.
• SUOAF did not agree to join the coalition of unions opposing the tuition increase at the community colleges.

c. SGA (O. Olamuyiwa)

• SGA tried to arrange hospitality for students who could not go home over the Thanksgiving Break. In the end, with the assistance of Dean Hernandez and Scott Hazan, gift cards were distributed to affected students.
  • Question: D. Blitz asked if the SGA knows if CCSU has any Ukrainian refugees on campus. O. Olamuyiwa noted he is not aware of any.
• Sen. Best, as a follow-up to the discussion at the last meeting about students with nowhere to go over the holidays, stated he contacted a community organization and it is willing to host up to 30 CCSU students.
• Sen. Hazan suggested that Sen. Best reach out to Dean Hernandez who is coordinating efforts since there is an unusually large number of students staying on campus during the winter break.
• Chat comment (Sen. Bray): Maybe we could send out a note to the faculty and/or staff that are still in town to "host" a student that are not able to go home.

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

• D. Blitz provided the following report on behalf of the FAC.
• There were two meetings on November 18th – a joint meeting with the BOR and an FAC-only meeting. D. Blitz read the statement he presented at the joint meeting with the BOR. There was only one hour set aside for the meeting and there were over 30 people present. The initial discussion was good, but there was not enough time to discuss all issues completely. The FAC-only meeting dealt with two issues: the problem of shared governance and faculty morale at the community colleges and the universities. There is a crisis at Western, a crisis has also arisen at Eastern, and we have a considerable number of difficulties and problems here at CCSU.

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. Curriculum Committee (N. Moore)

• N. Moore reviewed in detail the curriculum report circulated with the agenda.
• F. Latour noted some people could have questions about the Honors Program changes.
• Chat comment (Sen. Larsen): Thanks Ned - a clarification for everyone: it is technically a program revision (Honors is not listed on the pulldown menu on the CC website since we haven't updated the program since 2003 so it had to be listed as a "New Program" in the software)
• F. Latour proposed that the Honors Program and CCSU 103 course be separated out. He asked if anyone had any questions about the proposal to divide?
• MOTION: To divide the report into four pieces: Honors Program, CCSU 103, SPED and the rest of the report. (Latour/Best) Motion passed by unanimous consent.
• MOTION: To approve the Curriculum Committee report with the exception of Honors Program, CCSU 103 and SPED. Motion passed.
• Special Education
  • Sen. Barr asked about the required GPA for enrollment in the program (2.7). He noted there is also a requirement that students must maintain a 3.0 to remain in the program. He stated it is mathematically impossible for someone who enters with a 2.7 to have a 3.0 the following semester.
  • Dean Mulrooney noted that all professional program students must have a 2.7. To stay in the accelerated program, they must have a 3.0 in the graduate courses. Sen. Barr read directly from the report.
  • N. Moore said he understands the intent as Dean Mulrooney described: the 3.0 refers to the graduate student GPA.
  • Sen. Barr reiterated that is not what the language says and urged that spirit and letter correspond.
  • F. Latour clarified that a 2.7 GPA is required to apply to the Professional Program. That is true for every SEPS program. There is also something that says you have to have a 3.0 to stay in Accelerate Central.
  • J. Mulrooney said that the language should change to make it expressly clear.
  • F. Latour called attention to the Accelerate Central policy that requires a 3.0.
  • L. Jacobson said everyone voted to go with the 2.70 licensure requirement. She supported a refinement of the language to clarify that upon acceptance into the graduate program a student needs to maintain a 3.0.
  • Dean Mulrooney said this is 3+2 program and when a student transitions to the graduate portion of the program, they have to maintain a 3.0 to meet university standards.
  • F. Latour noted that there was a request to return this to the Curriculum Committee. N. Moore clarified that this came out of the Grad Policy subcommittee and if this is being sent back, it would need to go back to this committee. L. Jacobson said it was possible to bring this back to that committee.
  • F. Latour asked for a modification of the request to send this back to Curriculum Committee, making it a request to send this back to Grad Policy. L. Jacobson asked whether this would need to come back to Senate in the Spring or could she dispose of it within the GSC this semester and include it in her December 5th report. F. Latour had no objection including this in the December 5th report.
  • MOTION: To approve the SPED proposal, but send the piece about admissions/retention requirements to Grad Studies for clarification of the language related to admission requirements and remaining in the program.
  • Vote on the amendment: To add “send the piece about admissions/retention requirements to Grad Studies for clarification of the language related to admission requirements and remaining in the program.” The amendment was approved.
  • Vote on the Motion: To approve the SPED proposal, but send the piece about admissions/retention requirements to Grad Studies for clarification of the language related to admission requirements and remaining in the program. Motion approved.
• Modification to the Honors Program curriculum
  • FAC Rep Blitz acknowledged the huge amount of work that went into the report and congratulated N. Moore for doing so. He recommended that program changes be presented separate from the Curriculum Report going forward. He compared the old and revised Honors program attributes, including scholarships, course deliverables, faculty compensation, general education component, and completion rates. He noted all are eliminated in the revised program. He asked why these drastic and excessive measures are needed.
  • K. Larsen said the revision is not to increase the size of the program, it is to maintain the program. There has been a crash in recruiting and retaining student in highly encumbered programs like nursing and engineering. The curriculum has not changed since 2003, while many university programs have changed. More programs are encumbering gen ed areas and there is also competition with sister schools which have credit requirements of 16, 23 and 34 credits for their Honors programs, while CCSU’s is at 36. They offer students the ability to choose courses, whereas CCSU’s Honors Program is cohort based in lock-step curriculum. CCSU is at a distinct disadvantage. The numbers of new recruits are falling and retention is decreasing. As regards scholarships, while important, they are outside the purview of the program, as is faculty load. The curriculum changes are being done for the benefit of the students. At least that is the concern of the group of Honors faculty who put through this change after bringing in experts from other programs and our highly encumbered programs to make sure that what was being done served all students in all majors across the university.
  • D. Blitz noted his comments are for the record, however, he commented on scholarships, which are set by BOR resolution. One measure, he suggested, is to ask the BOR to increase that percentage so that proper scholarships could be offered, thereby making the program more competitive. He hopes that some revision to the revision will be made to restore the undergraduate thesis.
  • Sen. Larson noted that the thesis requirement has not been removed; it has been changed to a capstone requirement, like what exists at sister schools. She said it is not true that you can simply substitute a project in your program for your Honors capstone experience. It would need to be enhanced above and beyond, which is spelled out in the appendix to the Curriculum Committee report. There will be an Honors curriculum committee that will ensure there are standards in the new curriculum. There will actually be a higher degree of quality oversight than there has been in the past. Increasingly, programs have their own capstones. Some Honors students have had to do as many as three capstone experiences, which does not seem fair. Of the Honors students who make it to Junior year, most passed their capstone program. The challenge is getting to the Junior year. It is not fair to say that 90% who start the capstone finish it when there is such a large number of students who never get to the capstone.
  • Sen. Bigelow called the question.
  • MOTION: To end debate and take a vote on the main motion. Motion passed.
  • MOTION: To approve the revised Honors Program curriculum. Motion passed.
• CCSU 103
  • Hearing no questions or concerns about CCSU 103, a vote on the motion was taken.
  • MOTION: To approve CCSU 103. Motion passed.

4. Unfinished Business

a. Proposal for the Advisory Committee on CSU Professorship bylaws

• The discussion of the proposal for the Advisory Committee on the CSU Professorship was continued. In the last meeting, a motion was made to strike reference to Associate Professor in the eligibility criteria and replace it with “tenured Full Professors” which would preclude Associate Professors from consideration.
• Sen. Jackson discussed the amendment. He expressed hesitation to have the Senate micromanage its committees too much. He noted that the committees are elected by the Senate and should be allowed to do what they do. He reiterated he is opposed to adding additional requirements from the Senate.
• F. Latour said that as a Senate, several actions could be taken: (1) approve the amendment and perhaps approve the change to the policy (2) turn down the amendment and approve the change to the policy. The proposal was to make the change immediately, however the process to name the next CSU professor has already started; nominations closed in November. Some expressed concern about making changes without reopening the application process. Another possibility is to say we do not want to make any changes now, the committee has ruled on current nominations, and refer our proposals to the committee so that they can recommend whether to make changes to the process for the next time.
• Sen. Foster: In terms of the one candidate who has been brought up, if the committee was asking for a ruling as to whether or not they could consider her, we should give them an answer.
• Sen. Al-Masoud expressed concern about changing a process to suit a particular person. He stated there are rules that have been working for several years and that changing them at this point to suit a certain person should be avoided. For the future? That is another question, he said. Comments in the chat were in agreement.
• Sen. Emeagwali expressed agreement with Sen. Al-Masoud. She also noted that she has no objections to returning this to the committee, which can investigate further and advise. She also noted that she took the matter back to her department and out of 12 History faculty, 11 agreed the CSU Professorship criteria should state full professors, not associate professors.
• Sen. Best also expressed agreement with Sen. Al-Masoud. The committee is likely far along in the process and the criteria should not be changed now. Changing the process for the future is certainly a possibility that should be explored.
• F. Latour: To recap, there was a motion to change “must have 10 years of service” to “be in their 10th year of service.” It was amended to also strike Associate Professor and replace it with Full Professor in the eligibility criteria.
• MOTION: To refer this proposal to the committee for consideration for changing the process for future years.
• Sen. Jackson questioned whether this came from a department or a committee. He said he did not think this came from the committee. F. Latour said he is correct and that the matter would be referred to the committee. Sen. Andreoletti asked whether this meant that changes to the process would be for future searches, not this one. F. Latour agreed.
• Sen. Recoder-Nunez asked who is on the committee. F. Latour recited the names of the committee members.
• MOTION: To refer this proposal to the committee for consideration for changing the process for future years. Motion passed.

5. New Business

a. Advising and PINs

• F. Latour asked for feedback on what it is like to not have PINS.
• comment (Sen. Bigelow): I asked the question of my class today and was happily surprised to hear upperclass students recommend that the first-year students in the room see their advisor.
• Chat comment (Sen. Tellier): Significant increase in calls and emails to Registrar's Office this registration period.
• Sen. Oyewumi relayed that he remains concerned that students are doing this on their own and not doing very well.  He has been reaching out to students after looking at class lists and writing to students with concerns, and they are not responding to him.
• Chat comment (Sen. Arena): If students do not need PINs, then a disclaimer should be made to strongly encourage to meet with their advisors to ensure they remain on course to complete their major in a timely fashion.
• Chat comment (Sen. Gamache): New incoming transfer students are registering without advising. It seems concerning, but time will tell. We continue to encourage them to schedule an appointment.
• Chat comment (Sen. Langevin): Most of my advisees had no idea that this was a surprise to them. The majority of the students believe that the pins are necessary.
• Chat comment (FAC Rep. Blitz): I wonder if the absence of faculty advising will result in higher DWF?
• Sen. Al-Masoud: We should not only look at whether or not a student has registered. Are students registered for the right courses or not? Some are registered for courses that have prereqs they have not taken, or courses they do not need.
• Chat comment (Sen. Jackson): I have 30 advisees, 8 have not registered, 7 of those are freshmen. But overall only 14 students total came for advising. I am looking over what those students who did not get advised registered to see if they did the correct courses, which is greatly increasing my workload.
• Sen. Tellier said that priority students (e.g., athletes, veterans, Honors, etc.) were all emailed their PIN numbers and those numbers were based on their time of registration; it was not linked to advising.  It was linked to allowing early access to the registration system.
• Chat comment (Sen. Farrish): In the Journalism department, the faculty members favor the PINS so students make the right choices and can graduate on time.
• Chat question (Sen. Langevin): I recall a discussion was planned regarding the pin policy would be had after the spring semester was completed and some preliminary data was obtained??? F. Latour clarified this is for the Task Force on Academic Advising.

6. Adjournment

• Motion to adjourn (F. Best). Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.