CCSU Faculty Senate


February 27, 2012

VAC 105

3:05 PM


The next meeting of the Faculty Senate is on Monday 3/12/12 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

Present: Alewitz. M., Alicandro, J., Anderson, C., Barr, B., Barrington, C., Braverman, S., Calvert, J., Cappella, D., Christensen, S., Cohen, S., Diamond, C. , Dziuda, D., Foster, P., Garcia-Bowen, M., Godway, E., Greenfield, B., Hoopengardner, B., Hou, X., Iglesias, E., Johnson, B., Jones, C., Kean, K., Kershner, B., Latour, F. , Mahony, M., Mejia, G., Menoche, C., Mione, T., Morano, P., Mulcahy, C., Mulrooney, J., O'Connor, J., Osoba, B., Pancsofar, E., Percy, V., Pesino, S, Petkova, O., Poirier, K., Raajpoot, N., Ratansi, S., Reasco, A., Sanders, D., Sarisley, E., Shell, G., Slaga, S., Tellier, A., Vogeler, R., White, C., Wlodarska K., Wood, R.

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C

Ex-Officio: Lovitt, C., Sakofs, M.

Guests: Bergenn, E., Hicks, E., Tordenti, L.


1. Approval of Minutes, February 13, 2012

2. Announcements

a. AAUP Vice-President (M. Mahoney)

Nominations are now open for 4 CCSU-AAUP Council Members and 1 alternate for 2 year terms beginning 6/1/12. Nominations close March 12. See the CCSU –AAUP website for more information.

There will be a chapter meeting on 3/13 in Vance 105: we will address finances, workload, and recent legislation.

On 3/1 in the Sprague Room of the Student Center there will be a planning meeting for a rally in support of higher education. This is part of a nationwide AAUP action called “Occupy hHgher Education.”

There has been movement on implementing the hybrid retirement plan. Please see last Friday’s e-mail from Ellen Benson. Information about how to participate will be available soon. A preliminary FAQ is available on website and was e-mailed last week.

b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (E. Hicks)  

The legislature votes tomorrow on the bill defining the FAC to BOR. We are supporting testimony for a revision of that. The testimony is available at this link:

Testimony on Senate Bill 42 Concerning the FAC to the BOR.

We are sad to report that the SBDC (Small Business Dev Corp) is not going to be renewed. That will impact some jobs.

Regarding the recent Security breach: We are working with the AAUP to express our official reaction to that.

c. SGA (E. Bergenn)

Please see the attached resolution from student governance concerning the recent proposal on Gen Ed from the BOR. We hope that the Faculty Senate may respond to this.

       SGA Resolution on the BOR Gen Ed proposal

We continue to try to staff committee positions. We have filled many, but not all. Any suggestions you have concerning how to fill these would be welcomed.

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

No new report.

e. President of the Senate (C. Barrington)

    1. This spring, there are many positions to fill on several committees as well as the officers of the Senate.  A complete listing of anticipated vacancies is posted on the Senate Web page.  Nominations will be sought until the beginning of March, with the final ballot for committees ready by March 26th and results reported out on April 9th. Election of officers will take place on April 9th. Please begin thinking about which committee(s) you would like to serve on and encourage the members you represent to consider running for these important committees.
    2. The joint teaching and administrative faculty caucuses will be 5 March in Vance 105. Currently, our topic will be a tutorial on reading university financial statements.
    3. The term’s second Presidential Forum will be on Wednesday, 18 April at 1:40 in the Constitution Room. At that time, Sally Lesik and Carolyn Fallahi to present the 2nd half of their Gender and Equity Study.  
    4. There will be an open forum to discuss the Department of Sociology’s innovative proposal to change some of its required three-credit courses to four credits, as well as the general rationale to support the proposed course enhancements. The forum will be held on Tuesday, March 6th from 3:05-4:30 p.m. in the Philbrick Room located in the Student Center.

 3. Reports

a. Elections Committee (see president’s announcements).

b. Ad Hoc Committee for Sabbatical Leave Reform

There will be no vote on this today. Please take this back to your department. Make sure that this document addresses concerns any of us may have had or do have. E-mail suggested changes or concerns to president Barrington.

c. Constitution and Bylaws Committee (Consent Agenda and Senate Calendar) FS 11.12.025 B

Passed unanimously.

    Attached File: Using a Consent Agenda

d. Academic Standards-Fresh Start Policy

This hasn’t been vetted yet by SGA. So we should perhaps wait until our next meeting to vote on this.

We hope it will pass soon and be effective for Fall 2012.

This is for students who have not succeeded and need a fresh start after an absence. It is not for students who simply have a poor GPA.

The changes proposed here make the policy more accessible and consistent with the other CSU schools.

I’d like to see the Academic Standards committee look at a policy that requires 30 credits moving forward. One that may involve people with credits who leave in good standing.

How many students might this affect? Everyone who is eligible now for the program participates—perhaps 6-10 per semester.

Vote was deferred to the next meeting.

4. New Business--Update on HB 5030

There have been revisions to the original legislation. There is language that says faculty should be involved in creating pathways and assessing them. That is a result of faculty testimony before the House.

The system office has formed a steering committee that will be charged with shepparding this proposal through.

The Curriculum Committee chairs, the provosts, The FAC representatives, The union presidents, and the senate presidents from the four CSU schools are gathering next week to talk about how to make this workable.

In the legislation, the core curriculum is measured not by classes but by competencies. We want to be part of the discussion about what these competencies will be. These will then be amended department by department to indicate what students need in order to get into the program on the JR level. Every major and program will have an individual pathway.

What is ambiguous in the legislation is whether those pathways will differ going into each of the CSU insitutions.

There also needs to be a mechanism for changes to the curriculum.

The BOR and Legislature don’t seem to understand that our courses for next year are already set. The calendar they have set up for this reform is unrealistically short.

No one has yet considered how will this play to the accreditation issue for departments (and university).

Many majors use Gen Ed courses as part of the major, but how will that be influenced by this change?

Almost all of the courses in some CCs are taught by part-time faculty. So there is an issue of quality control. Secondly, under this proposal is there any reason to take Gen Ed courses from the CSUs?

This kind of reform will require a major commitment of resources.

Before anything is adopted, the legislature should look at other states that have tried to implement statewide programs: There are many negative dynamics and negative models. Ohio, Florida, Arizona. We should not just be talking about what might be, but about what implementation already looks like. These states states aren’t necessarily positive models—but they seem to have taken the same path proposed for CT now.

Does this legislation require us to reinvent what we have already done? We have many articulations. All of our articulations are individualized with each CC, but this will be a larger policy with all the CCs.

There is a difference in articulations and standardizations. No amount of standardization can reconcile vastly different departments on different campuses.

On the heels of our year-long discussion on Gen Ed, this top-down mandate is very aggravating.

However, the fact that the new initiative focuses on competencies means that we do have leeway in our gen ed design.

This is done in the name of the students—that it will make their lives better. Yet we have an SGA proposal that is not acknowledging that. The SGA proposal seems to indicate that diversity of curriculum is important.

Resolutions from B. Greenfield:

Motion one FS 11.12.004R : The Faculty Senate supports the SGA resolution dated Feb 15.

Motion two FS 11.12.005R: The Faculty senate supports and encourages participation in the meeting on March 1 – Occupy Higher Education.

Both resolutions passed unanimously.

5. Adjournment at 4:45.