Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
November 28, 2001
http://www.scsu.ctstateu.edu/organizations/facultysenate
The sixth meeting of the
2001-2002 year was called to order at 12:18 PM.
Members Present:
Brownell (Art), Lavin (Art),
Puerschner (Chemistry), Ullian (Communication), Coburn-Enquist (Communication),
Jirsa (ComDisorder/MFT), DaPonte (Computer Science), Nwachuku (Couns/SchPsych),
Fullmer (Earth Science), Corbett (Education), Cairns (Ed Leadership), Petrie
(English), Hood (English), Johnson (English), Mee (Exercise Science), Rinehardt
(Exercise Science), Verplaetse (Foreign Language), Judd (History), Dunklee
(Jounalism), Bielefield (Library Science), Schofield-Bodt (Library Services),
Wu (Library Services), Prince (Marketing), Brin (Math), Wallace (Nursing),
Prince (Part-time faculty), Young (Part-time faculty), Volkman (Philosophy),
Broadbridge (Physics), Paulson (Political Science), Sherman (Psychology), Bulmer
(Public Health), Cusato (Science Ed/Env Stud), Dripchak (Social Work), Brucker
(Special Ed/Reading), Major (Special Ed/Reading), Watts (Theatre)
Members Absent:
(Accounting), Maloney
(Athletics), Martinelli (Biology), Lawler (Counseling), Thorson (Econ/Finance),
(Education), Hernandez (Foreign Language), Sakalowsky (Geography), Petto
(History), Nodoushani (Management), Bennett (Math), Moss (Music), (Part-time
faculty), (Part-time faculty), Kahlbaugh (Psychology), Grants
(Recreation/Leisure), Haymes (Social Work), Skoczen (Soc & Anthro)
Presidentıs Report:
(Attached)
President Paulson called attention to the draft Academic Strategic Plan, available online at http://www.southernct.edu/faculty/index.php?file=acastrplan.html. The current draft was produced by the Deans, but there is work in progress to involve the faculty in the production of the final Academic Strategic Plan. Richard Gerber, representing the Office of Academic Affairs, will meet with the Senateıs Executive Committee in order to discuss a proposal.
Announcements:
UCF Update:
G. Puerschner reported that debate on the proposed Writing Board continues. At the meeting of November 29, the UCF plans to vote on the formation of the Board, along with a proposed amendment to make the Board a standing committee of the UCF rather than an autonomous standing committee. The content of the Writing Program will be debated and voted on separately.
Standing Committee Reports:
Old Business:
Because
any proposed change to the By-Laws requires a 2/3 vote of the membership, the Secretary went through a roll call to determine
how many Senators were present. It was determined that 36 of 50 Senators were
present at the time of the vote. The measure would need 34 votes to pass,
leaving a margin of only two votes.
In
light of this, P. Major moved that the vote be postponed until December 12. The
motion passed by voice vote.
New Business:
R.
Jirsa moved to recess as a Senate and reconvene as a forum to discuss the
proposed language of the resolution. The motion passed by voice vote.
The
forum discussion included the following points:
·
The committee
consciously chose not to
explicitly define what sorts of behavior would be ³disruptive,² since any such
definition would risk leaving something out.
·
While students have a
right to due process, faculty may remove a student from a class on a given day.
However, prohibiting a student from returning to subsequent sessions of the
class would require procedures allowing for due process, including the
procedures outlined in the proposed resolution. If the relationship between the
University and the student is like a contract, then it cannot be unilaterally
dissolved without due process.
·
Perhaps there should be
a specific document that states the binding policy of the university on these
matters. C. Schofield-Botd explained that the Board of Trustees ultimately sets
policy on these matters, and it is not the intention of the committee to add or
revise those rules that are currently in place. The Student Code of Conduct,
the Dean of Student Affairs, the Academic Vice-President, and perhaps the
Student Handbook are relevant sources of information on the current policy.
Some Senators argued that a clear statement of the policy should appear in a
document recognized to be ³legally preeminent.²
·
The committee should
make it clear whether this is a statement of policy or merely a conveying of
advice. On the one hand, if the resolution directs publication of these
guidelines and is submitted to the University President for approval, it would
have the force of policy. On the other hand, if there is no need or intent for
a new or revised policy (as suggested above), then perhaps the resolution
should avoid language implying a mandate. In either case, it seems the
guidelines should be published in the Faculty Handbook.
·
Faculty should be made
aware of their potential liabilities in case of inaction in the face of
disruptive behavior. In general, it would be good to have a more clear
statement of faculty liabilities in such circumstances. However, such a statement
may go well beyond the charge of the committee.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:35
PM.
Respectfully submitted,