CCSU Faculty Senate

Minutes—November 19, 2001

VAC 105  3:00 PM

Members Present: Abadiano, Altieri, Austad, Baratta, Benfield, Best, Blatz, Calvert, Capitao, Cassela, Chasse, Cohen, Conway, Crundwell, Cueto, Fried, Garcia, Gilmore, Halkin, Halloran, Hicks, Jones, Kim, Kjell, Kurkjian, Lapuerta, Larose, Leake, Lefebvre, Lemaire, Martin, Martin-Troy, O’Connell, Perrault, Phillips, Ribchinsky, Ritzenhoff, Rodrigues, Sarisley, Stanley, Stoneback, Thornton, Terezakis, Ulrich, Wolff.


Ex‑Officio Members Present: V.P and Provost Bartelt, Deans Miller, Lemma, Higgins and Kremens, Dick McCallum, Associate VP for Administrative Affairs


Guests: Paul Petterson (Chair Curriculum Committee), Jeanne Sohn (Acad. Reorg. Comm), Lawrence Klein, Susan Pease.


Meeting was called to order by President Best at 3.05 p.m. in Vance 105.


I.                    Approval of Minutes of 11/05/01


Secretary Benfield noted an addition requested: Under discussion for V. add, the new judicial officer, Tom Clark, did say that faculty should consult him if they have academic dishonesty cases while Judd's signature is pending. In addition there were some minor typographical changes that have been made

Motion to accept.


Carried Unanimously

II.                 Announcements


a.       AAUP Report. Sen. Austad


On Thursday, November 15, CSU-AAUP's Attorney filed a Respondent Brief with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations. The challenged issues have been reduced from 10 to 3. The remaining issues are 1) Article 3.3 - Non-Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Sexual Harassment Complaint Procedures, 2) Article 9.4.4 - Working Conditions - Electronic Mail and 3) Article 10.8 - Workload - the ratio of Full-time Faculty to Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Students (part-time cap issue). By November 21, the BOT's attorney will determine whether or not a hearing is necessary. If not, the BOT's reply brief must be filed by November 29

Secondly Sen. Austad noted there was an AAUP social that afternoon. All are welcome as are donations to the family of Dr. Olusegun Sogunro  of the Department of Education Leadership.


b.       Board of Trustees Report. Sen. Abadiano.


Attached to end of minutes


c.       Exceptions to DEC’s. President Best

President Best reminded the Faculty Senate that a number of Departments had too few tenured Faculty to constitute a viable DEC and therefore constitution with members outside the Departments must always be made. In the case of this year timing of Senate meetings meant that exceptions must be approved prior to November 15. The steering committee therefore authorized exceptions to the DEC on November 13 to accommodate this situation.


d.       International programs for students and faculty. Colleen Larson and Lisa Bigelow


Ms. Bigelow indicated that the Center for International Education works with the International and Area Studies Committee and six regional studies centers to implement the Study abroad program, 2-5 week course abroad programs, the intensive English language program, grant initiatives and faculty exchanges. All of these programmatic areas are available to faculty to further their personal and professional development and she would welcome faculty to discuss any of the above program possibilities at any time.


III.               Elections

There was no elections business


IV.              Senate Committee Reports


a.       Curriculum Committee. Paul Petterson

Indicated the report had been previously circulated with the following amendments now proposed (See attached):


Motion to accept with Amendments



V.                 Old Business

There was no Old Business


VI.              New Business


a.       Photo copying-New System Larry Klein

Dr Klein indicated that recently he went to the copy center for Xeroxing and under the new system was declined service as he was “unauthorized”. He wanted to know why and indeed given the volume of material he Xeroxes (for classes totaling 90 students) why is this monitored…which brings up the issue of costs. Given an 80% increase in student tuition fees in the last ten years why are we “cheap skating” the students. In essence we should be allowed to teach how we wish to teach without administrative hurdles.

Sen. Jones: You should be on a list approved by the chair…the secretary keeps and administers that list.

Sen. Martin-Troy: the Chair is responsible

Sen. Jones: Is not all your xeroxing non-chargeable?

Dr Klein: But I have no authorization.

Sen. Austad; what do you wish the Faculty senate to do?

Dr Klein: Not sure…but this is hurting students

President Best: The Steering Committee will undertake to pursue this issue with the President.          

b.       Academic Reorganization. Jeanne Sohn

Ms. Sohn introduced the members of the committee and indicated there were four areas to which she had a selection of responses and comments



Response to date


Chairs leadership Initiative

Generally positive

Some chairs wanted to know if it meant more meetings?

Restructure the weekly block to provide a 4 hour Wednesday “no class time” block

Mixed reaction but more inclined to change. Some value to uncommitted time

Rationale is more collegial academic community. The architect of this suggestion has demonstrated it can be accommodated

Office of General Studies with advising, learning center, guidance retention responsibilities

Again various responses, more inclined to think it a good idea than not, reasonably positive.

Started as a suggestion for a new School of General Studies but now the inclination is toward a more conservative approach.

Restructuring of schools in academic Affairs. Four alternate plans all with additional/changed schools.

Almost universal condemnation in Arts & Sciences. Not appropriate, resented. Other schools comment that A & S could be restructured to make it more like them.

General dissatisfaction with the four options.



Ms. Sohn indicated that the committee would reconvene on Wednesday November 28 to consider comments from Faculty and departmental chairs with a view to meeting the deadline set by the President for a report before Christmas.


Motion: That the senate poll all faculty to respond to the four initiatives presented by the Committee and also to include the four plans for restructuring and that the results be sent to the faculty senate and the Budget and planning Committee

Gilmore/ Terezakis

Discussion on the Motion


Sen. Phillips: what existing data on other Universities were consulted?

Ms Sohn: Consulted peer institutions, but only looked at their organization without individual consultation

Sen. Crundwell: What is the feedback so far from departmental chairs?

Sohn: A number have sent resolutions to the committee.

Sen. Stoneback: Why not send ballots to departments?

Sen. Fried: The must critical question to her is what is the Mission of the Institution and where does this therefore fit in? The Committee needs to explain these proposals in the context of the mission.

Sen. Halloran: He concurred-more specifically what is the problem that generates a need for re-organization? Where is the problem statement? Why is the present structure not acceptable?

Sen. Moran: Two concerns (i) The poll should also include the issues of the General studies proposal and (ii) do we really wish to base policy on public opinion?

Sen. Phillips: What are the costs associated with each plan?

Dr Klein: We need a purpose and a sense of history here

Amendment to the Motion from Sen. Martin-Troy. “By individual ballots”


Sen. Ritzenhoff: Is there more discussion on the advantages and disadvantages elsewhere?

Sohn: The full text is on the web site, which is: >><<

Sen. Abadiano: When can this poll be conducted in order to meet this deadline?

Sen. Martin-Troy: It must be done by E Mail

Sen. Fried: Who decides on the final report?

Sen. Martin-Troy: The administration

Sen. Jones: Spoke against the motion as it showed nothing other than popular opinion and this is not how we as faculty should influence policy.

Sen. Crundwell: Also spoke against the motion. What if we only get 15% responding…do 85% agree or disagree? Some Departments have already voted and responded does this negate their vote?

Sen. Phillips: (i) what are the political implications? What if a department does not want to move? (ii) Can the ultimate decision come back to faculty senate for approval? (iii) What are the costs?

Question Called

11 for the motion

22 against

3 abstentions

The Motion was defeated


VII.            Adjournment

Motion to adjourn



Six voted against the motion

      The meeting adjourned at 4.13. p.m.

Next Meeting is December 3 at 3.00 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted

Richard W. Benfield

Faculty Senate Secretary