CCSU Faculty Senate


April 23, 2012 VAC 105   3:05 PM


The next meeting of the Faculty Senate is on Monday 4/30/12 in Vance 105 at 2:00.

Note: Senate Constitution, Bylaws, Meeting Dates, Agenda and Minutes are posted on the CCSU Pipeline under Faculty Resources/Faculty Senate, or at

Present: Alewitz. M., Alicandro, J., Anderson, C., Bantley, K., Barr, B., Bigelow, L., Braverman, S., Cappella, D., Christensen, S., Cohen, S., Delventhal, T., Diamond, C. , Durant, M., Farhat, J., Foster, P., Fothergill, W., Garcia-Bowen, M., Godway, E., Greenfield, B., Hoopengardner, B., Horan, M., Hou, X., Johnson, B., Jones, C., Kean, K., Kershner, B., Latour, F. , Lisi, P., Mahony, M., Mejia, G., Mendez-Mendez, S., Menoche, C., Mione, T., Morano, P., Mulcahy, C., Mulrooney, J., O'Connor, J., Osoba, B., Pancsofar, E., Petkova, O., Poirier, K., Pope, C., Sadanand, N., Sanders, D., Sarisley, E., Shell, G., Slaga, S., Tellier, A., Vogeler, R., Wlodarska K., Wood, R.

Ex-Officio: Sakofs, M., Shojai, S.

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

President of the Senate: Barrington, C.

Guests: Bergenn, E., Hicks, E., Jones, J., Nunn, M. A., Tordenti, L., Wolff, R.

The Steering Committee recommends the following items for inclusion on the Consent Agenda:

1. Minutes

4a-i. Reports from following Committees: Library, Academic Advising, CCSU Foundation, Grade Appeals, CCSU Trustees Teaching Award, Diversity, University Athletic Board, Information Technology Committee, Student Affairs Committee

5a. DEC Exceptions

5d. Committee on Committees bylaws revisions

Items accepted on the Consent Agenda will be approved without discussion or vote. Please indicate if you would like to have any item removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion and/or floor vote.

Approved unanimously


1. Approval of Minutes, April 9, 2012

Consent Agenda Item--Passed

2. Announcements

a. AAUP President (J. Jones)     


b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (E. Hicks)    


c. SGA (E. Bergenn)     


d. FAC to Board of Regents (S. Adair)      

See attached Communication to BOR from FAC regarding Transfer and Articulation Policy

e. President of the Senate (C. Barrington)     

The end-of-the term business continues to pour in. So, we will have TWO more meetings after today’s.

30 April at 3:05 in 105 Vance.   At that time we will:

  • Elect representatives to the TAP committees and subcommittees.
  • Hear a report from the Master Planning Committee
  • Hear reports and points of business that do not belong on the consent agenda.

7 May at 2:00 in 105 Vance. We will have three primary points of business

  • The Curriculum Committee will present its final report for our consideration
  • Conduct any final in-Senate elections
  • Host Dr. Robert Kennedy, the President of Connecticut’s Board of Regents for Higher Education, and Mr. Mike Meotti, the board’s executive Vice-president, who will join us an informal conversation. This will be our opportunity to learn more about their vision for Connecticut State Colleges and Universities in general and CCSU in particular.

Tomorrow, 24 April, between 2:45 and 3:45, Steve Weinberger and Nicholas Alaimo will sponsor an open forum on the Campus Climate. The discussion will be held in Founders Hall. Mr. Weinberger is the Vice President for Human Resources for the Board of Regents, and Mr. Alaimo is the CCSU CCSU Student Advisory Representative to the BOR and the Student Government Association (SGA) Vice President

There are two items on the agenda that are not part of the consent agenda, nor do we plan to consider them today. We’ve placed them on the agenda, so you can think about them between now and our meeting next Monday.

    • The first is a proposed revision to a Senate document, “Functions and Responsibilities of Standing Committees of the CCSU Faculty.” Most of the document is consists of housekeeping and other cleaning up that the Committee on Committees is charged with maintaining. One item—P6—requires your consideration and input. Please look at the document and be ready to discuss and vote on it at the next meeting.
    • The second document offers a set of Guidelines that are the result of suggestions made by the two most recent Sabbatical Leave Committees and by the ad hoc committee the Senate formed last spring. I doubt you will find any of it controversial; however, we want you to have a week to look at it before we bring it to the floor for a vote.

3. Unfinished Business

a. Elections Committee (J. Mulrooney)

The elections committee held runoff elections for two committees.

Complete committees will be posted on the respective committee pages on the Faculty Senate website.

b. General Education revision FS 11.12.033B


Amendments to Gen Ed Proposal

President Barrington moved the following ground rules (approved by the steering committee) for the discussion on the General Education revision.


For the amendments, there will be a 5 minute limit of discussion. Individual comments will be limited to 1 minute.

The first speaker will be the amendment's author or advocate. The second speaker will be R. Wolff on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Also Amendments 1 and 2 pass without discussion.

Passed unanimously.

Amendments 1-2 passed

Amendment 3

This amendment is meant to preserve variety in the Gen Ed program.

Passed with 4 votes against

Amendment 4

Meant to further define areas explicitly for scientific inquiry.

Failed with 1 vote in favor.

Amendment 5


Amendment 6

Two amendments on a Wellness requirement

6b (the more specific amendment) was discussed first.

Creates a core area for wellness. How will this amendment change the limitations for department inclusion? At present, departments can offer courses in two areas. Will that number increase to 3? It also may make a single category for a single department. Why not include wellness courses in the area of Self, Community, and Society. How would this affect transfer students. Would this be a new burden to them?

A few senators reiterated that this proposal (as well as other amendments) were placing a micro-perspective into a macro-proposal. These are questions that the implementation committee will be charged to resolve. Other senators expressed concerned that many issues appeared to be deferred to the implementation committee.

Failed with 3 votes in favor

6a (a more general amendment on wellness)

Several students argued against any form of Wellness requirement.

Failed with 19 votes in favor, and 22 votes opposed.

Amendment 7

This amendment is meant to preserve variety, as with amendment 3. Students shouldn’t be able to off-load too many of their major requirements into gen ed. It keeps gen ed as gen ed. It keeps departments from monopolizing gen ed for their majors.

Robert Wolff (speaking for the Ad Hoc committee) suggested that the more flexible we remain, the better we will be able to respond to BOR requirements. This amendment may work against students.

Failed with 4 votes in favor, and many opposed

Amendment 8

Requires higher academic standards for foreign language competency. High school seat time is not enough. We need to have standards and seat time is not an adequate measure of learning. If we were speaking about Math, the idea of seat time as adequate preparation would be rejected in a second. There was concern from The School of Engineering and Technology about how we will fit additional academic work into the program for those students who do not demonstrate language proficiency and need more course work. Adding more into the Gen Ed may be stressful for many of those students.

A number of people spoke both for and against the amendment.

Amendment passed with a very narrow vote. Votes In Favor 23, Votes Opposed 22

Amendment 9

Amendment was made irrelevant because of the vote on amendment 8.


Amendment 10

Retain Literature requirement. Literature is a long-standing component of all curricula and should remain so. The ad hoc committee responded that they wanted no set asides. The question is (and this question holds for amendment 12 as well) Do we want all of students to take these areas? Some in favor of the proposal also pointed out that literature need not be limited to just a few departments—it could be in any number of fields.

Failed with 19 votes in favor and 22 opposed

Amendment 11

Require a single course of international education. Ad hoc committee didn’t find support for this. The implementation committee can pursue tags. Tags may empower us to go in new directions. Sticking with our current program may not work in favor of our goals for international education. So you can be in favor of the idea but not be in favor this amendment.

Failed with 12 votes in favor, and 22 opposed

Amendment 12

Retain Lab Requirement. Do all students need a lab science class? Some science classes don’t have a lab component. Advocates for this amendments maintain that labs create a specific kind of knowledge and experience.

Failed with 13 votes in favor and 25 opposed

Amendment 13

Major revision of Core Area 2. The ad hoc committee urged against this amendment, saying it would require a revamping of the entire proposal.

Opposed Unanimously

Amendment 14

Maintaining current FYE program in place of CIS. The ad hoc committee does not support this, and has no clear idea how this amendment can be incorporated into the proposal.

Opposed unanimously

Amendment summary:

Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 8 passed.

 The Discussion moved to the Gen Ed revision as a whole.

Some senators wanted to discuss the possibility of pushing back the 10/1 deadline. Others responded that with the BOR deadline also looming, the timetable may have to remain short. The implementation can always request the senate for a change of the timetable next semester.

Senator Anderson (Engineering and Technology) urged people to oppose revision of the gen ed program on the basis of amendment #8 (language requirement).

R. Wolff reminded the senate that we are not voting on a hard and fast curriculum at this point. Nothing is set in stone. He stated that there is no intention to impose the will of one group on another. Don’t sink the work of two years over this question.

A motion was made to defer the vote on the proposal to the next meeting. The motion failed with 4 votes in favor and many opposed.

Vote to call the question passed.

The proposal passed with 35 votes in favor and 5 votes against.

The Senate will need to vote for an implementation committee at our meeting of 5/7.

On a similar note, the BOR is forming two committees for the purpose of implementing the new Transfer and Articulation Policy: A core competencies steering committee, and subcommittee for each for the core competencies. Please look for a mailing from the secretary on these elections in the next day or so.


4. Reports

All Reports were part of the Consent Agenda--Passed

a. Library Committee (J. Snyder)

b. Committee on Academic Advising (M. P. Bigley)

c. CCSU Foundation Grant Advisory Committee (R. Waterman)

        Request for Proposals, Fall 2011

        Report to Senate, Spring 2012

d. Grade Appeals Committee (W. Nelson)

e. CCSU Trustees Teaching Award (P. Lisi)

f. Diversity Committee (B. Merenstein)

g. University Athletics Board (P. Schlickmann)

h. Information Technology Committee (T. Burkholder)

i. Student Affairs Committee (F. Pearson)

5. New Business

a. DEC Exceptions FS 11.12.034B

b. Sabbatical Leave

   Sabbatical Leave guidelines 4/11/12

   Proposed Amendment to Sabbatical Leave Guidelines of 4/11/12

c. Academic Standards--In Residence Credits for Overseas Programs (deferred to 4/30)

d. Committee on Committees -- bylaws revisions

   1.  Information Technology Committee

   2. CSU Professorship Committee

   3. Academic Standards Committee

                e. Committee on Committees--Functions and Responsibilities document for distribution. No vote or discussion today.

5. Adjournment at 4:45.