CCSU Faculty Senate

Minutes—October 24, 2011

VAC 105   3:05 PM



Alewitz. M., Anderson, C., Barr, B., Barrington, C., Bigelow, L., Braverman, S., Calvert, J., Cappella, D., Christensen, S., Clark, B., Cohen, S., Corbitt, T., Diamond, C. , Durant, M., Dziuda, D., Farhat, J., Foster, P., Fothergill, W., Godway, E., Greenfield, B., Hoopengardner, B., Horan, M., Hou, X., Iglesias, E., Jarmoszko, A., Kean, K., Kershner, B., Latour, F., Lee, L., Menoche, C., Mione, T., Morales, A., Morano, P., Mulcahy, C., Mulrooney, J., O'Connor, J., Osoba, B., Pancsofar, E., Pesino, S, Piper, B., Poirier, K., Pope, C., Ratansi, S., Reasco, A., Sadanand, N., Sanders, D., Sarisley, E., Slaga, S., Tellier, A., Vogeler, R., White, C., Wood, R. 

Ex-Officio: Kremens, Z., Lemma, P., Lovitt, C., Sakofs, M.

Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.

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


1. Approval of Minutes, October 10, 2011

Approved Unanimously

2. Announcements

AAUP President (J. Jones)

On Wed 11/2 in Memorial Hall from 4:30-6:30 there will be an event for Campus Equity Week. It concerns promoting the achievements of our part-time faculty.

SUOAF-AFSCME President (E. Hicks)

There will be a social on 11/3 in Memorial Hall—hopefully the system office people will join us.

Contact us if you have questions on the new hybrid retirement plan.

SGA (E. Bergenn)

The SGA is looking for ways to create more involvement between the SGA and the faculty senate. He presented the attached proposal for senate consideration – a proposal that essentially grants students seats on faculty senate.

Senators asked for time to read and digest the document and president Barrington suggested that students work with the Constitution and Bylaws committee to see what kind of proposals are possible.

President of the Senate (C. Barrington)

  1. This Thursday, October 27, the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee for General Education will hold a campus-wide meeting to discuss its initial ideas for the revision of General Education. The meeting will be held in 231 Copernicus Hall from 3:05 until 4:20 pm. Faculty, students and staff are all welcome. The Committee will hold a second open meeting in November as our proposals take shape.  In preparation for that meeting, the committee will provide a very brief report on their proposals at today’s Senate meeting. Please share it will your constituencies and encourage your colleagues to attend the forum, visit the blog at where suggestions and ideas regarding General Education are posted, or contact Robert Wolff.
  2. President Miller and the Faculty Senate will host a second forum later this fall, on Wednesday, 30 November, at 3:00, in the Connecticut Dining Room.
  3. Regarding today’s Resolution in Recognition of Campus Equity Week: there are many important points regarding the use of contingent faculty at CCSU. Steering Committee and I urge the Provost to find ways to hire more full-time, tenure-track faculty, so that we are not so dependent on part-time faculty.
  4. Regarding today’s Resolution Expressing Disapproval of the Vance Lecture Selection, Briann Greenfield and I met with Chris Galligan, vice-president of Institutional Development, to discuss ways in which the faculty can be included in the selection of the Vance Lecture speakers. He assured us that from this point forward, the process will be more open and will include a mechanism for the serious consideration of faculty suggestions.
  5. Senate Bill 1241, which reorganized public higher education in Connecticut, calls for a Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents for Higher Education. The legislation stipulates who should compose that committee: three faculty members from CSU, three from the community-technical colleges, and one from Charter Oak. It also stipulated how those committee members should be chosen.

After sketching out how the committee should be organized, the legislation gives the FAC the following duties:

    • it shall meet at least twice a year with the BOR, with the right to participate in all deliberations and discussion, but without the right to vote.
    • it shall report annually to the appropriate joint standing committees of the General Assembly.


I want to share two points of concern. The first is the election of the FAC membership (A). The second is the responsibilities of the FAC (B).


A. For reasons that I do not understand, Louise Feroe (CSU’s acting chancellor) decided they we should not have the system-wide elections (as stipulated by the legislation); instead, she has determined, each of the 4 CSUs will elect one teaching faculty representative; one of the 4 will be designated each year as an alternate. It was determined by Dr. Feroe and the four provosts that the representative from Western CSU shall be the alternate for 2012, from Central for 2013, from Eastern for 2014, from Southern for 2015, and so on in this order.  


Already, Eastern and Western have elected their faculty representatives to the FAC.


After consulting with Jason Jones (the CCSU-AAUP president) and Vijay Nair (the CSU-AAUP president), the Steering Committee and I have developed a process for this first election. Right after this meeting, we will issue a call for nominations that details the information I am sharing with you right now. We will hold the nominations open for approximately two weeks. Any regular contract AAUP-member may be nominated with only TWO stipulations: the CCSU member will commit to attending not only minimally required meetings but also any others called by the FAC; and the CCSU member will report regularly to the Senate as part of the Announcements. Once nominations close, the election will then be conducted. CCSU’s FAC representative and the alternate will be named before the Thanksgiving break.


B. This brings us to the responsibilities of the FAC. If the FAC meets only its minimum obligations, then it will be little more than window dressing at best and a forum for factionalism at worst. Therefore, the Steering Committee and I will urge our CCSU representative and (through the faculty senates of the other CSU and CCC campuses) the other six FAC members, to do the following: (1) to meet regularly (at least as often as the BOR) in order to develop an agenda that protects and promotes faculty governance at the campus, the system, and the statewide levels, and (2) to be included in all the BOR meetings, not just two a year.  


As a side note, the Alternate we elect to the FAC will act as an alternate ONLY to the non-BOR meetings; if the CCSU representative cannot attend a BOR meeting, then the Western CSU representative will attend that meeting.

3. Committee Reports:

Senate Elections Committee—Election results (J. Mulrooney)

Promotion and Tenure Full Professors

1 From Business – Michael Gendron (Mgmt Info Sys)

1 From SEPS – Susan Seider (Teach Ed)

1 At Large – Phillip Halloran (Math)


Promotion and Tenure Associate Professors

1 From A & S – Paul Petterson (Poli Sci)

1 From Eng-Tech – Nidal Al-Masoud


Sabbatical  A&S Fine Arts – Brian Kershner (Music)


Ad Hoc Committee on General Education (draft report is attached)

The first open meeting on possible Gen Ed redesign will take place on Thurs. at 3:05 Copernicus Hall.

This is a draft document, that puts forth 4 different proposals that may be adopted in whole or part.

Proposal 1. No change

Proposal 2. Modification of what we have. It keeps some categories, eliminates some specific requirements.

Proposal 3. Substantial revision

Proposal 4. The most ideal plan— or goal plan—for the Gen Ed committee.

In reviewing these, remember that the state mandates that 1/3 of all credits in a degree program must be constituted by Gen Ed credits.

This meeting is not the only way to participate in the process of consultation and design of the Gen Ed program. The blog is a very good way to communicate.

We see this as an open and transparent process.


Assessment Committee  FS 11.12.005B (J. Mulrooney)

This report is a recommendation from the Assessment committee to change the assessment schedules across the university. Instead of requiring annual reports from every department, there would be a requirement of a comprehensive report every four years and an interim report in the intervening years.

There were some questions about what the requirements would be for an interim report. Those guidelines will be forthcoming.

Some senators asked how the assessment program interacted with contract issues and faculty resources. J. Jones stated that AAUP was looking at workload credits to see if there is a need for release time for assessment procedures. He regards curriculum review and assessment as cognate concepts. There are resources for curriculum review (according to the contract). Senator White asked if there should be another pot of resources for assessment.

Provost Lovitt stated that this change will lessen the workload on chairs and Department Assessment Committees, so it should be regarded as a positive change. It significantly reduces the amount of work each department has to do every year. This proposed change is an acknowledgment of the near impossibility of the task under the current guidelines.

Some senators inquired how the interim reporting cycle would cut down on the workload for the university assessment committee—since it requires the committee to read all interim reports each year. Senator Mulrooney stated that the short interim reports should be much less time-consuming.

A senator from engineering stated that his program is required to complete assessment for their accreditation process and this process is on a three or six year cycle. Is there a way that these assessment cycles could be synchronized? J. Mulrooney answered yes, emphatically.

Senator Greenfield inquired about the ramifications if a department doesn’t get assessments reports in on time. Is there a chance of financial penalty? J. Jones responded that that option has been taken off the table. There can be no financial penalty for not turning in the report on time.

Provost Lovitt remind the senate that NEASC mandates that we need assessment.

Passed with 4 abstentions

4. New Business

a. Resolution in Recognition of Campus Equity Week  FS 11.12.002R  (K. Kean) Document attached is the revised, approved version.

The intention of the resolution is not to suggest anything behavioral — to recommend changes in policy or governing documents—but to outline a series of principles that we can agree to.

In response, Senator Cohen pointed out that parts of the resolution appear to address general principles, but other parts appear to commit CCSU to courses of action that we have not thought through.

Senator White responded in agreement. She applauds the principles, but worries that certain aspects of the resolution could signal approval for policy changes that would not be advantageous to part-time or full-time faculty.

A motion was made to cut  the 2nd and 3d "therefore statements."

These changes were accepted with 3 against, 7 abstentions, and all else in favor

The question was called.

Approved with 7 abstentions, 3 opposed, all others in favor

b. Resolution Expressing Disapproval of Vance Lecture Selection (Robert Gates)  FS 11.12.003R  (E. Godway)

Several people regarded the resolution as problematic because it seemed to amount to a variety of censorship. Is CCSU to have a litmus test for all of its speakers?

Others countered that the resolution does not limit speech but expresses disapproval of the selection. If one looks at the slate of Vance lectures over time, it is clear that the roster of speakers is not balanced.

Others added, that this is a question of the university’s sanctioning of this kind of speaker. Implicitly we are honoring the speaker.

Provost Lovitt asked why the senate is being asked to vote on this. CCSU has had plenty of speakers on campus—some of which were failures. No other people have been boycotted in this way.

Several senators voiced disapproval of the resolution and stated that we should be supporting those speakers we most disagree with.

An amendment was proposed to correct the spelling of president Obama’s name, and to change the phrase “encourages protest” to “supports the right to protest.”

This change was approved with 11 votes in favor, 4 against, and 16 abstentions.

There was a discussion as to whether or not, by passing the resolution, we may alienate up to 700 of our students who are veterans--there may be some unintended consequences to passing the resolution.

The question was called.

The resolution failed with 6 votes in favor, 20 against, with 4 abstentions.

 5. Adjournment at 4:40