CCSU Faculty Senate
Minutes of February 14, 2011
VAC 105 3:05 PM
The next meeting of the Faculty Senate is on Monday 2/28/10 in Vance 105 at 3:05.
Note: Senate Constitution, Bylaws, Meeting Dates, Agenda and Minutes are posted on the CCSU Pipeline under Faculty Resources/Faculty Senate, or at http://web.ccsu.edu/facsenate.
Present: Alewitz. M., Alicandro, J., Anderson, C., Ayalon, A., Barr, B., Barrington, C., Benfield, R. , Bigelow, L. , Bigley, M.P., Christensen, S., Crespi, C., Czyrnik, K., Delventhal, T., Diamond, C. , Dukes, C. , Greenfield, B. , Halkin, S., Hensley, P., Horan, M., Iglesias, E., Jarmoszko, A., Jones, C., Kapper, M., Karpuk, P., Kean, K., Kershner, B., Koh, K., Latour, F. , Mahony, M., Mamed, O., Mejia, G., Menoche, C., Mulcahy, C., Mulrooney, J., O'Connor, J., Odesina, O., Oliva, K., Osoba, B., Pancsofar, E., Percy, V., Pirog, K., Poppe, K., Ratansi, S., Saha, K., Vogeler, R., Wang, W., Washko, L., White, C., Wood, R. , Wright, E.
Ex-Officio: Lemma, P., Lovitt, C., Pease, S., Sakofs, M.
Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.
Guests: Foster, P., Gendron, M., Hedlund, J., Jones, J., Miers, R., Rodriguez, R., Tordenti, L.
1. Approval of Minutes, January 24, 2011. Senator Wood proposed several amendments which were accepted. The revised minutes passed unanimously.
a. CCSU President on Governor Malloy's plan for higher education (J. Miller)
President Miller quoted from recent articles in the New York Times and Chronicle of Higher Education that demonstrate the broad national context regarding state budget crises, financial pressures on higher education, and negative sentiment toward collective bargaining.
He suggested that it behooves us to listen, to remain informed, and to be responsible engaged partners for the next few months. He said the details of organizational structure (to his knowledge) are not all hammered out, and suggested that a different organizational structure with CCSU’s financing reasonably intact (we know that there will be budget cuts) isn’t necessarily negative.
b. AAUP President (J. Jones)
To supplement President’s Miller’s comments: Jones reported that SEBAC is in informal discussions--but not concessions negotiations--with the Governor’s office. As far as consolidation goes, the AAUP agrees with the Governor that the CSU system spends too low a percentage of operating expenses on instruction, and so we agree that if cuts are in the cards, that they should come from the top. However, we will also defend our students’ access to liberal arts education, which should not be a prerogative of the private schools.
On Saturday, the leadership from the four campuses is meeting to hammer out a common response to the governor’s budget proposal (forthcoming Wednesday) and the higher ed consolidation plan.
CSU-AAUP is organizing buses of faculty, staff, and students to be in Hartford on 2/28 for the Higher Ed appropriations committee. (One will leave from the senate!)
Legislative breakfast, previously scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, has been moved to March 1. Sen. Beth Bye has already confirmed attendance.
On March 10, we’re having our next chapter meeting.
The CSU-AAUP, the CCSU-AAUP executive committee, and the CCSU membership have all voted to endorse and organize for April 13: Take Class Action: Demand Quality Education, a day in defense of public (higher) ed.
The 4-campus listserv for AAUP members now exists; you should’ve gotten instructions for accessing it from Ellen Benson, if not, let Ellen or Jason know.
The CCSU-AAUP is soliciting nominations for all officers (Pres., VP, Secretary, Treasurer, and a few at large positions). Look for a neon green flyer. Nominations are due before spring break.
CSU-AAUP is also holding elections.
c. SUOAF-AFSCME (O. Mamed)
As mention above, SEBAC is in informal discussion with the Governor’s office.
Union members need to be informed and active citizens in these times. We need to read papers and respond, and take up a positive informational position. People are often goaded by the media; there is much anti-union sentiment and that is often not well-informed. Please be active, informed citizens.
d. President of the Senate (C. Barrington)
Last Friday, the Systemwide Advisory Committee for the CSU Chancellor search meet for the second time. Although the governor has announced his intention to combine the state university system, the community college system, Charter Oak College, and the Department of Higher Education, the Board of Trustees has instructed the Advisory Committee to continue with the search process. In response, the Committee passed two motions: (1) one requests vice-chancellor Balducci to meet with the Committee and explain the reasons for going forward with the search, and (2) the second recommends that any announcement or advertisement of the position not occur until Mr. Balducci meets with the Committee.
On Friday, 25 February, the Senate’s Writing Across the Curriculum ad hoc Committee will co-sponsor a workshop with Academic Affairs and the Center for Teaching Excellence and Leadership Development. The workshop leader will be Susanmarie Harrington. She will focused on Writing Within the Disciplines. The workshop begins with a continental breakfast at 8:30 and continues until 3:00; lunch will be included. Please announce to members of your departments. Reserve your spot by emailing Paulette Lemma.
Recently, the steering committee received the suggestion that
the nomination process visible in real time, so that we could see who was running for various positions before nominations are closed. That way, if I saw that my perspective was not likely to be represented on a particular committee I would be more likely to run myself. If I saw that someone with my interests and I were both running for a position, I might withdraw my nomination. If many people saw that the only person running for a position was someone not likely to represent the best interests of the faculty as a whole, discussion could ensue regarding who else might be nominated.
We referred the proposal to Steven Bernstein, the chair of the Elections Committee. He has already determined that the proposal is doable and will implement it for the next round of elections.
Finally, the Appropriations Committee will conduct a Hearing on Higher Education onMonday, February 28 afternoon and into the evening. The Chairs of the Appropriations Committee have urged CSU-AAUP members and students to attend this hearing in large numbers. CSU-AAUP will be arranging bus transportation to the Capitol and we will have t-shirts made for this event. Please look for more information on e-mail and please encourage your students to attend.
3. Committee Reports
A. Ad Hoc Committee on General Education (R. Wolff) FS 10.11.015B
In short, the survey indicated that there is both a need and desire among the faculty to revise CCSU's General Education program. This report concludes stage one of the initial charge to the committee.
Stage two mandates that the committee generate a proposal or set of proposals by Spring 2012.
There was a great variety of responses to question #3 of survey. See link above. In a nutshell, many people agree with this basic principle of Gen Ed courses: they shouldn’t be a chore to take or to teach.
For information on the work of the committee please visit their website.
B. Academic Integrity Committee (J. Hedlund) FS 10.11.016B
J. Hedlund presented revisions of some forms and procedures. All of these changes are for the purpose of clarification and consolidation and do not represent major changes in the policy. After hearing from sevreal constituencies, these suggestions are being made in order to clarify some procedures, close some loopholes, and clarify the role of the office of student conducts role in the academic integrity process
Senators suggested striking one parenthetical comment from 4b of the policy.
Academic Misconduct Policy (with one change)
Academic Misconduct Report
Academic Misconduct Report Appeal
Passed with one abstention. All other votes in favor.
C. UPBC Committee
Academic Program Review (P. Lemma)
The Academic Program Review process is designed to assist CCSU in its reports to NEASC (New England Association of Schools and Colleges)and the Connecticut Department of Higher Education.
Our letter of accreditation from Fall 2008 stated that we should be reviewing all academic programs on a regular cycle. We did not want departments to have to undertake additional work for this process. The program reviews are generated by looking at the assessment reports and annual reports that departments complete on an annual basis.Each deptartment has its own process for a plan of assessment, so this is not top-down approach for how department should assess their outcomes.
The review process also relies on information from other offices on campus that may have useful information on departments, such as OIRA, International studies, and Community Engagement.
Program Review has other benefits:
It can ultimately enhance student learningsuccess; assist in the allocation of resources; and assist in program improvement.
The current process put deptartments on a cycle (department will not be reviewed every year), and every now and then an external reviewer would look over the reports.
All department members need to review their department reports before they are submitted to the administration. Dean Pease emphasized that this is a very important step.
UPBC has approved this procedure.
J. Jones requested that this item be sent to the union for review.
Vote on the item was postponed until completion of union review. It will be listed under Old Business on a future agenda.
Academic Standards Committee (J. Mulrooney) FS 10.11.017B
This report is not requesting any changes to department procedures or curricula. It is simply clarifying where we require C-‘s for student achievement in different academic programs. The Committee suggests creating categories of Requisite, Required, and Related courses. Requisite and Required courses will require a grade of C- or above for credit in the program. This will go to departments and will be included in the catalogue information for each program.
4. New Business
Report on CCSU Foundation (Parker English)
Prof. English gave background on the foundation and an update on its current status.
The CCSU Foundation was created in 1972. It remained relatively inactive until the late 80s. We now have about $31 Million in the endowment. These funds comes from a small number of large coroporations.
On the other hand, the foundation receives only a small number of donations. We receive donations from only 4-6% of alums each year.
Roughly 40% of funds go to endowed chairs and 60% to scholarships. Most of the scholarship money goes to non athletic students. There are 4 full-time fundraisers and one money manager.
The Foundation as 18 board members: including three are administrators and one faculty representative; the others are alumni.
He suggested that to increase funds in the endowment, when faculty are contacted by recent grads, consider suggesting that they make a contribution to the foundation, even if it’s only 5 or 10 dollars.
This can be done by asking simple questions such as: What are strengths of CCSU? How could you make it better?
He also suggested bequething something in wills to CCSU.
5. Meeting adjourned at 4:32