Members Present: Abadiano, Altieri, Austad, Baratta, Benfield, Best, Blitz, Braverman, Calvert, Casella, Chasse, Chen, Conway, Crundwell, Czymik, Fried, Garcia, Gendron, Glarner, Halkin, Hermes, Jackson, Jones, Larose, Leake, Lee, Lemaire, Martin, Martin-Troy, Markov, Merriman, Moran, Perreault, Petrauch, Phillips, Rodrigues, Sarisley, Stoneback, Tenney, Thornton, Walo, Wolff.
Ex-Officio Members Present: V.P Bartelt, Deans Whitford, Higgins and Kremens, E. Demos (Ex. Asst to Pres.) P. Lemma (Grad. Studies) L. Deane (Univ. Council).
Guests: Paul Petterson, (Chair, Curriculum Committee), Francis Keefe (Advising center), Jeanne Sohn, Steven Cox (Chair, Grad Studies), George Claffey, Lisa Ricci (MIS), B. Sommers (Academic Standards) (Technology), T. Burkholder (Chemistry), P. Resetarits (Tech), S. Vial (Design), J. DeLaura (IT)
Meeting was called to order by President Best at 3.15 p.m. in Founders Hall.
- Approval of Minutes of 04/16/01
Sen. Crundwell: Minutes should read:
1. Under "Technology Use Award" VI (c) should say "Excellence in Leadership Committee" not "Committee on awards"
2. Should read under same section "…process of nominating a Faculty member" not "Student".
3. Should note he was not on that committee and was sheepish not shameless in his dereliction of duty.
Motion to accept with changes
- AAUP Report. Sen. Austad
At the time of recording a contract facilitator is assisting in negotiations. The content of such discussions is kept confidential by agreement and thus any information must await the end of this process. She remains hopeful.
- Academic Reorganizing Committee. Jeanne Sohn
Jeanne Sohn thanked the Senate for the opportunity to speak about the Academic Reorganization Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to review the organizational structure of the academic potion of the University. There is no agenda to make any specific changes but rather to ascertain if, after almost 20 years of being a University, there could be improvements in the way we operate.
The Committee hopes that the work that it is doing will become well known across campus and that all faculty will have an opportunity to contribute to the work of the Committee. Meetings have already taken place with Department Chairs, and there was an open faculty meeting prior to today’s Senate meeting that was well attended. Interested faculty are encouraged to contact Committee members with their ideas and comments.
The Committee is currently working on gathering information about CCSU as well as other universities, both those considered peer institutions and those considered aspiration institutions. It hopes to analyze that information to determine if there is a correlation between organizational patterns and academic performance. Additional information will be collected during Fall 2001; a draft report will be written and disseminated to faculty; comments will be received and a final report will be written and submitted to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by December 2001.
- Day Off in Fall Semester. Letter from other CSU Faculties senate:
President Best indicated he had received a letter from other faculties’ senate of the CSU system regarding support for the provision of a day off in fall semesters. Given our earlier deliberations and the Presidents reply that it must go before the Board of Trustees, this item was deferred to the fall meeting.
- RFP for Online Courses Sen. Larose.
The final version of the RFP for Online CSU vendor (and portal vendor) is being sent out. Committee consists of administrators and faculty from the four universities and the system office. Bob Yanckello, Peggy Schuberth and Dan Larose represent CCSU. Members will note the insertion of the clause "The content of an Online CSU course is the sole intellectual property of the faculty member who has produced it". Sen. Larose will provide copies of RFP if requested. A vendor is to be chosen before the end of June.
- Information Technology Committee. Sen. Altieri.
Sen. Benfield reminded the Senate that at the April 16 meeting it was indicated that the President would certainly veto the proposed by-laws of the Committee. Thus a:
Motion for acceptance of (new) by-laws (Attached) was passed on April 16. President Judd did subsequently veto the original by-laws but approved the new by-laws of April 16. Given this approval the committee must do additional work. Sen. Altieri addressed these:
The election of members of the ITC will be elected from the academic schools, the library and SUOAF/AFSCME. Sen. Altieri will send a message asking the deans, library director and SUOAF/AFSCME president to conduct elections within their units and ask them to return the results at their earliest convenience. He expects that the membership will be in place for an organizational meeting at the beginning of the fall semester.
Sen. Braverman indicated that the results of the April 16 elections were now available, with the exception of the Distinguished Service Award Committee where a run–off election was needed between Laura Bowman (Psych) and George Millar (Math). Ballots were circulated and counted and Laura Bowman won. No hanging chads were recorded. The full slate of committee members may be found on this web site. Sen. Braverman will be calling all committee chairs over the summer to initiate the first meeting
IV. Senate Committee Reports
- Committee on Committees Report (See attached By-laws)
Sen. Crundwell indicated that the Committee on Committees had met as a response to Sen. Blitz’s request at the last meeting VI (b) to extend their terms by changing the functions and responsibilities of the Standing Committees. In turn they had voted to make the following changes:
Basically they changed only section H. that deals with terms limits. As members can see they also suggested a change concerning members who are elected during their last term. This should provide more experienced leadership for faculty standing committees. These changes are shown below in italics.
H. Every Standing Committee of the Faculty shall have a statement of purpose including responsibilities and by-laws. How members are chosen, their number and length of service--both of a single term and number of consecutive terms--should be stated. It is important, that, if possible, the committee's meeting times be included in this statement. The maximum length of continuous service on any standing committee for elected members is either (1) three consecutive two-year terms or (2) two consecutive three-year terms. Members on Standing Committees of the Faculty that are elected into Office during their last term shall be granted a one-term extension. Committees may include in their bylaws more restrictive service limits, but they may not extend the above service limits.
Motion to accept Changes of Committee on Committees.
Dr. Blitz then outlined how this will change the work of the Budget and Planning Committee. The Committee’s Charter will now read:
(changes in bold).
The University Planning and Budget Committee advises the President, within the context of the University’s mission, through the Senate, on the long-term goals, strategic planning process and budgetary priorities of the University. It provides a forum for the discussion of planning and budgetary issues so that recommendations reflect the concerns of the entire campus community.
The Committee will
- Recommend to the President criteria and principles that the University should consider in determining its programmatic priorities, and make specific recommendations based on current conditions and the University’s mission and vision statements.
- Evaluate planning and budget processes and recommend changes as needed.
- Participate in the periodic review of the University’s mission and vision statements.
- Develop parameters for strategic planning initiatives, including mechanisms to solicit, review and recommend proposals.
- Consult in the creation and implementation of the University’s strategic planning process.
- Serve as a forum for discussion and advice concerning general budget matters.
The Committee will report to the President through the Senate and will choose its own chair. Members of the Committee will serve four-year terms and may serve two consecutive terms. Elected teaching and administrative faculty (half, where possible) will be selected every other year, resulting in staggered terms. Students, upon nomination, will be appointed annually by the President. The Committee’s membership will be composed as follows:
- six members of the teaching faculty, one of whom will be part-time, elected by the Senate; three will be elected in even numbered years, for four-year terms.
- three members of the administrative faculty elected by the Senate; two will be elected in an even numbered year, one will be elected in the next even numbered year, for four-year terms.
- two at-large members (one teaching faculty member and one administrative faculty member) appointed by the President to provide balance among units on campus; one will be appointed in an even numbered year, the other will be appointed in the next even numbered year, for four-year terms.
- The following will be appointed annually by the president, upon nomination:
- one undergraduate student recommended by the Student Government Association.
- one graduate student recommended by the Graduate Student Association
- one part-time student recommended by the Director of Continuing Education
- Ex officio members including the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Vice President for Institutional Advancement, a Dean selected by the Council of Deans. The Executive Officer for Planning and Analysis and the Chief Financial Officer, serve ex officio and provide staff support to the Committee.
The University Planning and Budget Committee will provide an annual written report to the Senate at an appropriate time near the end of each academic year. The report will contain recommended priorities and a summary of the Committee’s findings, actions and recommendations for the year.
Sen. Martin-Troy: How will this be implemented?
Sen. Crundwell: By the change in the committee by-laws. The problem is that there are a number of versions of by-laws of all committees as a result of unmonitored changes. The intent is to clean these up soon
Sen. Walo: Does this create staggered terms?
Sen. Crundwell: It can be.
Motion to accept changes in Charter
- Curriculum Committee Paul Petterson.
Indicated that the President had vetoed Items n through r (Department of Art: Page 5, Section # 6) of the previous curriculum report to the senate. These items will be taken up by the Curriculum Committee in the fall should the Art department so request. There were no other changes but in addition he requested Senators particularly note two items at the conclusion of the May 2 report to Senate; the first resolution on enrollment thresholds and early cancellation of courses, and then a second resolution on a yearly undergraduate catalog. The concern driving the second resolution was the coming online catalog, and some feeling that a two-year printed catalog may get too far out of sync with the online catalog. Some type of dialogue (perhaps an ad hoc committee) should be initiated to explore how the printed and online catalogs will relate to one another, so that substantial confusion will not result.
(Minutes of May 2 meeting as attached)
Motion to accept
- Academic Standards Committee Report, Brian Sommers, Chair
Provided a Proposed Revision of the "Policy on Good Standing" passed by the Academic Standards Committee at its meeting of May 1. (Attached)
Sen. Walo: Is this more stringent?
Sommers: We are taking the 2.00 good standing requirement and applying it to all students, not just those over 69 credit hours. We have increased just slightly the minimum grade point averages for probation/dismissal for students between 19 and 69 credit hours while eliminating the possibility of probation/dismissal for those students with 18 or fewer credit hours.
Sen. Halkin: For once in her term of office Sen. Halkin asked a weird question: Are we feeding grade inflation by this measure?
Sommers: No, this is only providing early intervention, the standard exists it is just being applied to everyone.
Sen. Moran: Are we not stating "C" is minimally acceptable when "C" is usually average in a class?
Sen. Leake: Only if you curve results and not accept work on its individual merit
Sen. Crundwell: It is not a C across the board, one may get an "A" in Chemistry but a "C" in German.
Sen. Moran: Then C is not an average.
Sen. Martin-Troy was concerned with implementation…when?
Sen. Moran: Particularly when it is too late for the catalogue and the committee work is finished.
Sen. Jackson: We already have the "C" standard in place. This is no change
Sen. Wolfe: …and we already have the 2.00 limitation.
Sens. Moran/Martin-Troy: Still concern over implementation
Pres. Best: What does Dean Higgins think of the new policy?
Dean Higgins: Essentially good as it addresses early intervention
Sen. Braverman: What are the numbers here?
Sommers: He recalls around 300 per semester if this policy were implemented.
Motion to accept pending implementation in the fall 2001
V. Old Business
a. School of Technology: Division into two Departments.
Secretary Benfield updated the senate on what had occurred since the last meeting. The basis of the issue is that there are three departments currently within the School of Technology: Engineering Technology, Industrial Technology and Technology Education. The request is to split one department, namely Industrial Technology, into two departments:
- Manufacturing and Construction Management
- Computer Electronics and Graphics
On April 26, Dean Kremens convened a meeting of the interested parties as requested by President Best. The three parties that made representation
The School of Business- Department of Management
The Department of Design (Graphics/
The Department of Computer Science
The School of Technology was also represented
Each party presented their concerns and recommendations, which are reflected in a copy of the minutes (Attachment 1). However it was clear that consensus and resolution could not be reached.
On April 28, President Best received a resolution from the School of Business based on their concerns (Attachment II):
On May 7 in an attempt to reach compromise and agreement, President Best convened a further meeting with no more than two representatives from each of the schools affected. The Senate secretary took the minutes (Attachment III).
At the senate meeting President Best indicated that consensus had not been reached and therefore he will write to the President on the basis of the Presidents request namely Dr. Judd in his letter to Pres. Best was desirous of Senate INPUT (secretary’s caps) into the proposal to divide School of Technology. In the letter he will include all the issues raised by the parties plus additional comments from the senate floor at this time:
Comments at Senate from the Floor:
Sen. Crundwell: Made two points:
- Notes the suggested (new) name from design indicates sciences and this needs debate and
- This (new) name does not reflect the full senates input or concurrence
Sen. Perreault: This was Prof. Vial’s suggestion
Sen. Martin-Troy: Reminded everyone it was only advice that was requested
Sen. Walo. We are not concerned about programs in the School of Industrial Technology
with management in the name; other schools have such programs as well. But,
She was sure many of these programs have management taught by the School of
Business, not Industrial Technology. Indeed Construction Management is what the School of Technology does.
Sen. Blitz: There needs to be a reflection in the name of an education philosophy. He indicated that the term "Graphics" was too broad and that an adjective was needed: The words Art, Design and Technologies seem logical and with clear connotations.
Sen. Halkin: Where does this "sciences" term come from?
S. Vial. It is used in the Rochester New York Department, which seems similar.
Sen. Walo: She indicated that she was concerned that the School of Technology will accelerate the practice of offering management classes normally taught by schools of business. Management is a functional area of the School of Business. Management courses should be offered under the umbrella of the School of Business, that is, under the School of Business curriculum oversight, staffing and standards.
Sen. Martin-Troy: We go back to reorganization and see the necessity to clear up these contentious issues.
President Best reiterated his intent to write to the President on the basis of the Presidents request namely Dr. Judd was desirous of Senate INPUT (secretary’s caps) into the proposal to divide School of Technology. In the letter he will include all the issues raised by the parties plus the additional comments from the senate floor.
VI. New Business
- Degrees confirmation:
The following Motions were introduced:
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Arts and Sciences in the December 2000 graduation lists for the degrees of B.A, B.S and B.F.A subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Technology in the December 2000 graduation lists for the degrees of B.S, M.S subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Business in the December 2000 graduation lists for the degrees of B.S subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Education in the December 2000 graduation lists for the degrees of B.S, and M.S subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
…That the faculty Senate approves the candidates from the School of Graduate Studies in the December 2000 graduation lists for the degrees of M.A. M.Sc. and Six-Year-degree subject to satisfactory completion of all requirements
All seconded by Secretary
All carried unanimously
- Academic Honesty Report. Sen. Moran.
Sen. Moran indicated that the President had vetoed the Academic Honesty proposal of April 16. Sen. Moran had since undertaken extensive discussions with Laurie Deane, and that it was her belief that most objections had been removed. She stressed that no policy is perfect and agreed that we would be willing to continue to revise this policy as needed to address legal concerns of due process and fairness once it has been implemented.
It is also very important to add that the policy itself is only one part of a much greater campaign to educate students and faculty about common standards of ethical behavior, and to encourage faculty members to interact with student regularly on these issues. The committee expects that MORE cases of misconduct will be identified earlier in the process under this program, and that it will assist us in carrying out our educational mission, rather than be purely punitive. We have already developed a brochure for faculty to assist in identifying problems, and working directly with students on misconduct issues.
The most significant changes in this version are:
- replacing the word "penalties" with "consequences" where appropriate.
- replacing "offences" with "incidents of misconduct."
- adding the department chair as a recipient of the incident forms (the first stop in an appeal; chairs ought to have a clue about what has happened.)
- specifying what faculty members should keep, and what should be returned to a student.
- a minor change regarding replacing grades of incomplete with appropriate grades.
- a fairly significant revision of Students Rights
A copy of the revised policy is attached.
Sen. Moran and President Best asked Attorney Deane if this represented and addressed her concerns. Attorney Deane: Indicated she had not read the document with changes and could only suggest it would address legal concerns not other concerns (social, logistic) that the President may have.
Sen. Lemaire: Do we have a sense of the President's objections?
Sen. Moran. No but the inclusion of three disciplinary steps addresses what she saw as the major objection
Sen. Wolff: Note this is not a grade appeals process.
Sen. Halkin: What does VP Bartelt think of the policy?
VP Bartelt: Notwithstanding her many talents speed-reading of a document received in the meeting was not one of her talents and she had not read it.
Sen. Lemaire: We should move it to the fall to consider it.
Sen. Leake: This makes no sense. We have a (proposed) policy all we are doing is changing it with minor modifications
Sen. Jackson. To delay is nonsense. This policy has been in the works for two years and is needed. She has no need to re-review given the hard work of the committee and the need
Motion to approve the revised policy on Academic Dishonesty
One opposed (Sen. Lemaire)
VIII Other business
Sen. Altieri indicated that the senate had long sought a venue more conducive to the cut and thrust of our gripping debates. He suggested that Vance 105 might be a better venue. The Faculty Senate has asked him to find out if Vance Room 105 is available in the fall for Senate meetings on the first and third Monday of the month at 3:00 p.m.
President Best thanked VP Bartelt for the nibbles. The intent was to have a social period after the meeting but the length of this meeting precluded such a gathering. Moreover the senators had given the refreshments a solid assault before and during the meeting. We would like to repeat the social element again but in the meantime VP Bartelt’s support and generosity was sincerely appreciated
Motion to adjourn