CCSU Faculty Senate
April 9, 2012 VAC 105 3:05 PM
Present: Alewitz. M., Anderson, C., Barr, B., Barrington, C., Best, F., Bunce, P., Cappella, D., Christensen, S., Cohen, S., Corbitt, T., Delventhal, T., Diamond, C. , Dziuda, D., Farhat, J., Foster, P., Fothergill, W., Garcia-Bowen, M., Greenfield, B., Halkin, S., Hoopengardner, B., Hou, X., Johnson, B., Jones, C., Kean, K., Kershner, B., Latour, F. , Lisi, P., Mahony, M., Mealy, M. , Mejia, G., Menoche, C., Morano, P., Mulcahy, C., Mulrooney, J., O'Connor, J., Osoba, B., Pancsofar, E., Percy, V., Petkova, O., Piper, B., Poirier, K., Pope, C., Ratansi, S., Sadanand, N., Sanders, D., Sarisley, E., Slaga, S., Tellier, A., Vogeler, R., White, C., Wlodarska K.
Ex-officio: Lovitt, C., Pease, S., Sakofs, M.
Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.
Guests: Bergenn, E., Hicks, E., Jones, J., Kideckel, D., Wolff, R.
The Steering Committee recommends the following items for inclusion on the Consent Agenda:
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.
Consent Agenda Approved
A motion was made to add a presentation from Robert Wolff to speak about the Gen Ed Reform proposal. This item is added just before the curriculum committee report. Motion approved
1. Approval of Minutes, March 26, 2012
Consent Agenda Item--approved
a. AAUP President (J. Jones)
We still need people to vote in the AAUP elections.
There will be a chapter meeting this Thurs from 3-4:30 in Vance 105 on the hybrid retirement plan.
b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (E. Hicks)
c. SGA (E. Bergenn)
SGA elections are this week. Visit the SGA website for details.
d. FAC to Board of Regents (S. Adair)
e. President of the Senate (C. Barrington)
a. CSU Trustees Research Award (D. Harris)
Some questions were raised about criteria 3 [Impact/implications of research for application/society]. Some research does not have direct impact on or application for society – is this a legitimate criteria?
b. International and Area Studies Committee (D. Kideckel)
Highlights of report: Evelyn Phillips has resigned as chair. We’ll need a new election for chair. Kideckel is interim director
Most of committee are members of Arts and Sciences, but not all.
The program is very strong. It grew out of a Center for Excellence grant in int’l Education. The number of students has doubled, while resources have stayed the same.
Some numbers are down, and we find this troubling (# of degrees awarded; # of students going abroad)
Adjunct faculty are teaching our cores classes. We need to try to rethink the curriculum.
There is also the issue of the continuing and ambiguous governance structure of this committee in relation to the senate. Some suggest that the Committee should be part of the school of Arts and Sciences, rather than a senate committee.
c. Robert Wolff Gen Ed committee
This design has fewer areas and more electives than our current program. Is this a 40 or 44 credits program? We will pick the lower number if that still corresponds with DHE guidelines.
This is a flexible design that will hopefully work with anything coming from the state house and the BOR.
Tagged courses can be used in a number of ways. For example, departments may say that they require X number of credits with a particular Tag. The tags are not in and of themselves part of the gen ed program (the program does not require or designate any tags).
Send possible amendments to the proposal to Burlin Barr by 1:00 on Monday.
c. Curriculum Committee (D. Adams) FS 11.12.032B
parts 1-7 passed unanimously
part 8. This is unique. It is CCSU course with Gen Ed credit taught to New Britain High School students in the teacher cadet program. If this works well, it may be expanded to other high schools. Taught by CCSU faculty.
Passed with one opposed.
The curriculum committee approved the revision of the Gen Education program by a vote of 26-1. The committee does recommend 4 amendments, which are the last item of the curriculum committee report.
What are examples of courses for Amendment 4 on a wellness requirement? This amendment may be rewritten. The implementation committee (the next committee, if this proposal passes) will have to figure out what sorts of courses they would be.
What is the rationale for no proficiency testing—amendment 1. Adams was not certain on the motivation behind that. Some people who voted against the proficiency testing do not want a foreign language requirement at all.
The Implementation committee will be charged with sorting where different courses will fall into the program.
The rationale for amendment #3 is that the objectives for gen ed and grad credit are fundamentally antithetical. Grad credit won’t be offered to any course that has GE credit. That’s a statement from the grad program.
d. Academic Integrity Committee (M. Jackson)
We made a few changes to the policy. The senate approved these back in december.
The provost also asked us to evaluate Safe Assign (an anti-plagiarism software that is part of Blackboard)—it’s going to be in the new version of Blackboard (Blackboard Learn). We looked at it, and reported that it was very easy and effective.
We continue to work on preventative measures that faculty can use to deter misconduct.
Expect a survey soon from the committee on some issues.
e. Elections Committee (J. Mulrooney)
Call for nominations for our three officers. There was one nomination for each of the three.
There being no other nominations, the secretary cast a single ballot for voice vote. The slate passed with one vote against.
4. New Business
D. Blitz has asked to speak to the senate. The Senate unanimously approved an invitation for him to speak.
D. Blitz indicated that he did not want to rehash anything that has already been well-reported in the Recorder. He is focused instead on the future and wanted to open a dialogue about the right to access to meetings.
He suggested that restrictions to meetings was against CT statutes. Meetings in the student center, on university issues should be open to all people included the public.
There was a motion to have open discussion on the matter. The motion was seconded. 12 in favor; 5 against.
Senator Poirier indicated that Otis Mamed (of the student center) has already requested counsel on this issue.
Blitz recognized that there are various meetings on campus where constituencies are limited, but he believes that this issue may fall under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Act, People shouldn’t barge into classrooms and speak; or enter into a faculty-student meeting during advising. But we should consult with the university counsel to determine appropriate limitations.
President Barrington suggested we could look at faculty handbook and perhaps develop language for such restrictions. We can run that by university counsel as well.
Others noted that there is a difference between attendance and speech. Everyone can attend some meetings, but that doesn’t mean they can speak.
Meetings are important, and we want to make sure we don’t create a culture in which group meetings are discouraged or prohibited.
Because the hour was late, there was a motion to continue this discussion next week on the agenda.
Motion failed with 5 votes for and 13 against.
Motion to refer this issue to the Academic Freedom committee, with the following charge:
Pursuant to the attached memorandum from David Blitz, investigate the options for holding meetings, caucuses, or fora that may be closed to different constituencies of CCSU. What are the legal and/or professional obligations that allow and/or prohibit exclusion from meetings? Please seek input from students, faculty, as well as from the university counsel.
5. Adjournment at 4:47