CCSU Faculty Senate
Minutes—March 3, 2003
VAC 105 3:00 PM
Altieri, Austad, Beirn, Benfield, Blatz, Blitz, Braverman, Capitao, Cassella, Conway, Crundwell, Dimmick, Dowty, Duquette, Foshay, Fried, Gallagher, Gilmore, Halkin, Halloran, Hedlund, Hensley, Kaplan, Kim, Kovel, Kurkjian, Larkin, Leake, Marlor, Martin, Martin-Troy, Mezvinsky, Mueller, O’Connell, Osterreich, Pesaro, Petkova, Rajaravivarma, Sarisley, Sevitch, Terry, Terezakis Wolff.
Ex Officio Members: Provost Bartelt, Deans Lemma, Pease, Kremens, and Root. Dr. Elaine Demos, Snr V.P and Asst to President.
Sarah Peltier The Recorder – student Newspaper
David Bednarz The Recorder – student Newspaper
Chris Pudlinski Chair, University Curriculum Committee.
Bob Yankello ITS
Scott Evon ITS
Donna MunroeChief Personnel Officer
President Best opened the meeting at 3.04.
- Approval of Minutes of 02/03/03
Motion to approve Minutes of 02/03/03 Martin-Troy/Crundwell
a. AAUP Report.
AAUP Report. Sen. Austad with guest: Dr David Walsh AAUP-CSU President
Sen. Austad: Read to the Faculty Senate a copy of the forty-three letters that had been sent out last Friday:
"I write to thank you for your service to Central Connecticut State University and to confirm that, consistent with article 4.8.2 of your collective bargaining agreement, your special appointment will expire on May 31, 2003."
Sen. Austad then introduced Dr Walsh who addressed the senate.
Dr. Walsh opened by indicating there were three major developments since he had last addressed the senate:
(i) Last Wednesday the General assembly passed the 02-03 budgets without putting back to work the 2800 laid off state workers. This issue, and others remain for the next biennial budget starting in July.
(ii) The state is now offering an ERIP. Essentially it contains a three year add on (Age or years of service) with a sick leave payout in July 05/06 & 07. As such it constitutes an illegal change to the contract and of course it excludes TIAA-CREEF members, privatization and requires retirement immediately (March, April, May or June). There are no exemptions and state will accept members who wish to retire but other issues pertaining to “how” they will be retired at this point it is not known. Essentially the ERIP is there and can be worked with but at this time there are too many outstanding issues.
(iii) There have been 43 non-renewals in the special appointments category but some campuses are also losing 1 st year tenure track faculty. A grievance will thus be filed under the contract as this is illegal specifically:
· As per the contract requirements this is NOT an economic exigency (as one has not been declared)
· Under a large body of existing law tenure track individuals are a unique case.
With regard to all these issues the union is actively seeking binding and swift arbitration.
There is clearly one other issue or question we might ask: Where are we now?
Notwithstanding the disappointment over the negotiations, the laid off workers and the animosity and the initial perception that we “lost” it is worth reflecting on where we came from and where we are now:
In November 2002, we were told to give e up 2%, accept a wage freeze, give $ 100 million and get revised health benefits (of a downgraded nature!).
Today March 3, 2003 we have not given up any of the above, have a 5 % increase planned for July (September for some) and our existing healthcare has not been surrendered. The tragedy is 2800 unemployed but 100 of those may have been retirees and we will work with Chancellor Cibes on behalf of the 2700 to get them back in the work force. In essence we can conclude that notwithstanding the disappointment, we have made gains and are still ahead. Furthermore the members of the general assembly are on notice by the unions that as we go into July budget negotiations we will be cognizant of their role in budget negotiations and voting record.
Sen. Blitz: On what grounds were the non-renewals given?
Dr Walsh: Not sure…he hasn’t seen the letters.
Sen. Altieri: Does U.Conn, after their separate deal, have a seat in SEBAC?
Dr Walsh: No, not in negotiations. IF they continue to pay their dues they will get a vote on the final package.
Sen. Braverman: Where is the $ 150 million from unions coming from?
Dr Walsh: The Interest on the Pension Plan that is deferred, so there is no loss there in the end.
Dr Walsh received long and sustained applause for his remarks
b. Exceptions to DEC.
President Best indicated that in keeping with faculty senate procedures, an exception to a DEC committee had been approved, wherein he had sanctioned the appointment of Dr Karen Beyard to the DEC of the College of Education-Reading Department as the numbers of tenured faculty were insufficient to constitute a full DEC.
- Elections Sen. Bravermann
Sen. Braverman indicated that last week the faculty senate secretary sent out an Excel attachment on behalf of the Senate Elections Committee requesting nominations for "Faculty Senate Standing Committees". (Please note that this attachment has two tabs at the bottom, one leading to information on the Information Technology Committee and the other leading to information on all the other committees). Requirements for committee membership are given in the descriptions of the responsibilities for each committee; committee membership is open to the faculty at large (NOT just senators!). Senate encourages all to consider serving on a committee; self-nominations are welcome. Senate would like slates of candidates to be as inclusive and representative of our faculty as possible. E-mail your nominations to BRAVERMAN@CCSU.EDU by March 14, 2003: please check first with anyone you'd like to nominate to make sure that he or she is willing to serve if elected.
- Senate Committee Reports
- Curriculum Committee. Dr Pudlinski
Dr Pudlinski presented the Curriculum Committee report. It is available at:
Motion to accept Curriculum Committee Report Martin-Troy/Wolff
- Information Technology Committee Sen. Altieri
Sen. Altieri indicated that the ITC had met the previous Friday and had discussed at length the issue regarding distribution lists and unsolicited e-mail. Prior to the discussion that would follow he suggested that senators bear three things in mind:
(i) The ability to distribute e-mail to (all) “Academic Departments” and/or “administrative departments” had only been possible for the past two years or so. Prior to that it was a restricted list
(ii) The utility and availability of Listserv’s had been looked at and
(iii) The issue seems that people can get on a general distribution list and when given the ability to get off rarely do so.
He pointed out other advantages of the Listserv such as the “digest” function that allows people to read mail at a specific time during a day i.e. It will hold all mail until the user is ready to read the mail. i.e. at the close of their workday.
Sen. Altieri then read the resolution (original resolution in Proposed agenda of March 3 on web). Discussion:
Sen. Wolff: Did the committee discuss etiquette?
Sen. Altieri: Yes…. this problem has always been there
Sen. Wolff: Can administrators join a faculty list?
Scott Evan: Yes but only if “qualified”
Sen. Crundwell: Can one “opt out” of discussions based on subject line?
Bob Yankello: Yes but probably very difficult to program.
Sen. Halkin: Who can be on which of the list serve proposed?
Sen. Altieri: Can be made either way…restrictive or open
Sen. Dowty: two concerns (i) The major issues in his experience with list serves have been Spam (anyone can inadvertently “sell” the list); the need for a moderator and then the need for protection of free speech.
(ii) The second concern is difficulty of access from outside. In the past to get a list serve distribution from an organization to which he belongs he had to go and get a Deans list!
Sen. Altieri: The intent of the list serves is to only get CCSU originating e-mails.
Sen. Dimmick: His experience has been to list moderators and to list members, and to sort on the basis of incoming source.
Sen. Fried: Question…. does this apply only to official university business?
Sen. Blitz, as member of the ITC proposed, on the basis of the discussion, to add the following amendments/modifications to the resolution:
Under item 1: … for the purpose of maintaining free communication among members of the CCSU community.
Under Item 2:… All email addresses must be CCSU addresses, and only members of the list can contribute messages.
Sen. Sevitch: Indicated he would vote against the motion for the following reasons:
It is not an issue of the utility of a system or whether one can turn messages “off” or “On” or even the receipt of Spam. No, the intent here is to deny faculty the right to reply to a message. Indeed experience has shown there are two classes of e-mail persons:
(i) Those with unlimited rights to reply and
(ii) Those without.
It is not a utilitarian system and in fact strikes to the heart of the faculty right to academic freedom. As an example Sen. Sevitch cited the AAUP list which is closed to some, insomuch as faculty cannot “Reply to all” AAUP members. His position is that he should be able to receive all messages, decline to respond the first time he receives such a message or he can communicate. The choice is this simple. When he hears in such a body as the faculty senate that there is “too much to delete” or “too much” or an excess of something or indeed “external Spam is a greater problem than internal Spam” he is reminded of President Judd’s article on Academic Freedom, published in AAUP’s ACADEME, wherein he writes “their faculties and students must have the unabridged right to opine about anything they wish within the sphere of their disciplinary authority and expertise”. Moreover he noted that President Judd wrote, “The University above all else must protect those rights. Upon that tenet rests the fabric of democracy and the basis of civil society.”
Sen. Crundwell: Is the issue not one of choice; namely one cannot at present “opt out”?
Sen. Sevitch: No one can delete
Sen. Crundwell: Not really as one gets the darn “reply’s from everyone” with the original (deleted?) message.
Motion: Blitz/Martin Troy
To approve with amendments the resolution as unanimously approved by ITC namely:
3 Three list servers will be established as follows: Academic List Serv, Administrative ListServ, and Student ListServ for the purpose of maintaining free communication among members of the CCSU community.
2) Each list will be preloaded with the email addresses of all individuals in each category; individuals can opt-out thereafter. Instructions will be included for subscribing and unsubscribing to a ListServ, and for opting for digest or undigest. All email addresses must be CCSU addresses, and only members of the list can contribute messages.
3) The lists will be updated at least annually; new faculty and students will also receive the required information to include their name on the appropriate list at any other time.
4) The existing faculty, administrative, and student distribution lists will be available only for official university business by Campus Announcements, Facilities Management, ITS, Personnel, Police, Academic Affairs and Registrar.
- Unfinished Business
There was none
- New Business
There was none
Motion to adjourn
The Senate adjourned at 4.01 p.m
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE MARCH 17 @ 3.00 P.M.