CCSU Faculty Senate
Minutes—September, 26 2011
VAC 105 3:05 PM
The next meeting of the Faculty Senate is on Monday 10/10/11 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: Abadiano, H., Alewitz. M., Anderson, C., Ayalon, A., Barr, B., Barrington, C., Bigelow, L., Braverman, S., Cappella, D., Christensen, S., Cohen, S., Corbitt, T., Delventhal, T., Dukes, C. , Durant, M., Dziuda, D., Farhat, J., Garcia-Bowen, M., Godway, E., Greenfield, B., Hoopengardner, B., Horan, M., Hou, X., Jarmoszko, A., Johnson, B., Jones, C., Kean, K., Kershner, B., Latour, F. , Lisi, P., Mahony, M., Menoche, C., Mione, T., Morano, P., Mulcahy, C., Mulrooney, J., O'Connor, J., Osoba, B., Pancsofar, E., Percy, V., Perdue, L., Pesino, S, Piper, B., Poirier, K., Pope, C., Ratansi, S., Sadanand, N., Sanders, D., Sarisley, E., Slaga, S., Tellier, A., Thornton, E., Vogeler, R., White, C., Wood, R.
Ex-Officio: Kremens, Z., Lemma, P., Lovitt, C., Miller, J., Pease, S., Sakofs, M.
Parliamentarian: Dimmick, C.
Guests: Bergenn, E., Hicks, E., Jones, J., Tordenti, L.
1. Approval of Minutes, September 12, 2011
a. AAUP President (J. Jones)
There will be an open forum on the Promotion & Tenure process this Wed from 1-2
The CCSU-AAUP can send representatives to Washington DC on the weekend of Nov. 11 for a conference on faculty governance. Contact Jason Jones if you are interested.
An exhaustive CSU-AAUP Workload Study is now available on CSU-AAUP website
b. SUOAF-AFSCME President (E. Hicks)
There will be a social on 10/13.
There is a workshop to be announced soon (date TBA) on workplace bullying.
SUOAF-AFSCME has concerns about its members in the system office (which is to be shut down). The union is working on their behalf.
The union is revisiting the evaluation process in efforts to improve this process.
d. President of the Senate (C. Barrington)
President Miller and the Faculty Senate will host a series of forums this fall.
On Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. in the Connecticut Dining Room of Memorial Hall.
And Wednesday, 30 November, at 3:00, also in the Connecticut Dining Room.
In accordance with the Promotion and Tenure Committee’s by-laws, faculty members are invited to attend an open forum on the university’s promotion and tenure process. The forum will be on Wednesday, September 28th from 1 to 3 pm in the Sprague/Carlton Room in the Student Center. Light refreshments will be provided. The President, the Provost, the Deans, and last year’s P&T Committee Chair will be there to reflect upon the current process and answer questions from the faculty.
3. Election of Senate Committees
a. Committee on Committees
Nominees: F. Latour, D. Cappella, W. Wang
b. Committee on Academic Freedom
Nominees: B. Osoba, C. Pope, C. White, A. Ayalon
c.Committee on Constitution and By-Laws
Nominees: C. Dimmick (parl), Carol Jones, Vernon Percy
d. Committee on Appointments and Personnel
Nominees: M. Horan, P. Morano, S. Cohen
A single ballot was drafted for a, c, and d, because these were uncontested elections.
The nominees for Committee on Committees, Committee on Constitution and By-Laws, and Committee on Appointments and Personnel were approved unanimously
A formal ballot for the Committee on Academic Freedom will be presented at the next meeting of the senate.
4. Charges to Committees will come at the next meeting.
5. Unfinished Business
a. Approval of Steering Committee
Nominated: C. Mulcahy
b. Committee on Committees
P & T bylaws
F. Latour reviewed the proposed changes. There are essentially two changes:
1) Limit the departmental representation to one person, and offer a provision to show what happens if two members of one department have high vote counts.
2) Change the date for the creation of the committee to Oct. 16 (which is two weeks early).
Because the two parts are unrelated there was a motion to divide the motion into two parts.
The first part FS 11.12.002B involved only changing the date for election of the committee to Oct. 16 (from Oct. 31).
The second bill was debated at some length.
Several senators wondered about the motivations of these revisions. Why are they being put forth? Diversity? Fairness? How does this change effect either of those? Some senators suggested that these changes may put small schools at a disadvantage (small schools may sometimes need representation from more than one department in order to have a diverse pool). Similarly, other speakers noted that limiting large departments may also cut back on diversity opportunities. Senators Cohen, Mahoney, Mulrooney, and White all spoke to these points as reasons to question support of the bill.
Senator Mahoney also spoke to the question of how this bill would impact faculty who teach across disciplines. Two people in one department may have two different emphases entirely.
Senator Greenfield did not express strong feelings either way, but seconded Mahoney’s point that Interdiscplinary programs should be protected and this bill did not do that. Greenfield was more interested in how this proposal would encourage or limit diversity.
Senator Ayalom encouraged senators to think of how or if this change would clarify the P & T Process, since the proposal does involve the instructions to the P & T committee. He spoke in favor of disciplinary variety.
Senator C. Jones spoke in support of the motion as is. She suggested that if two people from one department from one of the smaller schools served on the P & T it could give disproportionate authority to that department, and she feared that some people may not be well represented in such a situation. Her department (chemistry) supported the change as is, but she also indicated that there was adamant lack of support for a requirement for diversity.
The senator from psychology (Perdue) indicated that they were not comfortable with the one-size-fits-all model, and not comfortable with the motion as it stands.
The senator from Phys Ed and Human Performance (P. Morano) spoke in favor of the bill.
E. Pancsofar spoke against decreasing the number of represenatives to 1.
Senator Osoba suggested that if such a change were adopted, the work of the elections committee would be made even more difficult.
Senator White queried the use of the term “equity” in the rationale and wondered if there had been a study or a situation that prompted this proposed revision. President Barrington responded that there has been no systematic study. There was an issue last year that may have involved a small school. The question is whether or not this proposal offers a solution or is a matter of hyper-correction to a problem that has not been well defined or studied.
The question was called:
15 votes in favor; 32 votes against; 5 abstentions.
Two motions were offered (by Senators Greenfield and Alewitz) as amendments to the bylaws of the P&T, involving diversity and reaffirmation of the non-discrimation clause.
There was support of the sentiment of both motions.
Some spoke to voting at once on these changes.
Others stated it is the custom to refer changes in bylaws back to committee in order to give senators a chance to deliberate the proposals.
A motion to refer the proposals back to committee for a quick turnaround was Passed unanimously.
Community Engagement bylaws
Several questions were raised about this proposed draft of bylaws for a new committee.
Senator Cohen asked for clarification about the relation between the committee and the curricular process.
Senator Alewitz asked about the definition of Community Engagement as it is here proposed.
Provost Lovitt indicated that there had been efforts made to define the parameters of a CEN course, in order to provide consistency and rigor. The committee has created many documents in the creation of its minor to help clarify curricular issues.
Senator Johnson asked if the CE committee only included CCSU representatives or if people from the community would participate. Senator White wondered about the viability of having people from outside the CCSU community on a faculty senate committee.
Provost Lovitt suggested the importance of creating a CE advisory committee that would include outside people.
A motion to refer the bylaws back to committee for clarification (with an invitation to members of the committee to visit the senate) was passed unanimously with one abstention.
6. Adjournment at 4:25