Minutes of the Special Faculty Senate Meeting
April 24, 2002
http://www.scsu.ctstateu.edu/organizations/facultysenate
The fourteenth meeting of the 2001-2002 year was called to order at 12: PM.
Members Present:
Brownell (Art), Lavin (Art), Puerschner (Chemistry), Jirsa (ComDisorder/MFT), DaPonte (Computer Science), Nwachuku (Couns/SchPsych), Fullmer (Earth Science), Corbett (Education), Cairns (Ed Leadership), Petrie (English), Johnson (English), Mee (Exercise Science), Rinehardt (Exercise Science), Hernandez (Foreign Language), Verplaetse (Foreign Language), Sakalowsky (Geography), Judd (History), Petto (History), Dunklee (Jounalism), Bielefield (Library Science), Schofield-Bodt (Library Services), Wu (Library Services), Nodoushani (Management), Bennett (Math), Brin (Math), Wallace (Nursing), Prince (Part-time faculty), Young (Part-time faculty), Volkman (Philosophy), Broadbridge (Physics), Paulson (Political Science), Kahlbaugh (Psychology), Bulmer (Public Health), Grants (Recreation/Leisure), Cusato (Science Ed/Env Stud), Dripchak (Social Work), Haymes (Social Work), Brucker (Special Ed/Reading), Major (Special Ed/Reading), Watts (Theatre)
Members Absent:
(Accounting), Maloney (Athletics), Martinelli (Biology), Ullian (Communication), Coburn-Enquist (Communication), Lawler (Counseling), Thorson (Econ/Finance), (Education), Hood (English), Prince (Marketing), Moss (Music), Dobbins (Part-time faculty), Jexey Jack (Part-time faculty), Sherman (Psychology), Skoczen (Soc & Anthro)
A roll call was taken to establish that a quorum was present so that business could proceed. 31 members were present at this time.
No committee reports were made at this special business meeting of the Senate.
A. Paulson pointed out that this was a special meeting called to deal with issues currently on the agenda that we may not have time address at our last meeting on May 8. At our last meeting we contractually must hold elections for Senate President and Treasurer in addition to setting the travel policy for the next academic year.
Academic Policy: A proposal for the drafting process of an SCSU Academic Stragetic Plan
Control of the floor was turned over to J. Fullmer, Chair of the Academic Policy Committee. At the previous meeting, this proposal was divided into the original proposal and the amendment to the original proposal.
Paulson gave a brief history of the origins of this draft. About a year ago, someone authorized the deans to begin drafting an academic strategic plan. It is not known who gave this authorization. In November, D. Gerber came to the Faculty Senate with a plan that would allow for faculty input into the process. The Academic Policy Committee then drafted a different plan that was later approved by the Senate on December 12, 2001. After this, negotiations began between members of the Office of Academic Affairs and members of the Faculty Senate. The current proposal is the product of these negotiations. The word from the Office of Academic Affairs is that the deans are not happy about this proposal.
Arguments in favor of the proposal:
The alternative to this is no faculty input at all. If faculty are not involved, the deans will write the academic strategic plan on their own. The word is that the Strategic Plan Advisory Committee (SPAC) will be eliminated at some point, so this may be our only vehicle for getting our concerns into the strategic plan. Even though the contract ensures faculty rights over curriculum issues, established procedures have been bypassed by the administration in the past. Faculty need a presence on this committee to ensure their role in the curriculum. With the exception of initiating new programs, the faculty does not currently have an influence on the items listed under “Elements in the Plan”, and if we pass this proposal, we can give input on these items as well.
Arguments against the proposal:
A concern was raised about the assumption that deans are empowered to make the kinds of decisions being discussed in the academic strategic plan. They do not have contractual authority to write such a document. This is the faculty’s responsibility.
The proposal passed on a voice vote.
It was pointed out that the intent of this amendment was to have the faculty committee of 16 report to the Senate, but not be directed by the Senate.
The proposal passed on a voice vote.
P. Kahlbaugh: Regarding Library Space I
This resolution came out of the University Library Committee. The initial space that the library was to obtain after the building expansion was reduced since the building costs were over budget. Currently, the library also houses the departments of Information Technology and Library Sciences. There is no clear plan for where these departments will go in 2009.
The resolution was seconded, and two friendly amendments were offered and accepted without objection. The amended resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the library is the centerpiece of academic life, and
Whereas the bond money was allocated for the expansion and improvement of the
library, only, and
Whereas the library needs all of the space provided by the expansion to meet the
Minimum ALA (American Library Association), ACRL (Association of College
and Research Libraries) and NEASC (New England Association of Schools and
Colleges) standards,
Be it resolved, that the developing Master Plan specifically relocates the
non-library departments temporarily accommodated on the second and third
floors of Buley Library in 2007, (planned Information Technology and
Department of Information and Library Science) to appropriate new or renovated
Space outside the library by Fall, 2009.
Points of clarification:
Why 2007 and 2009? The architect’s plan calls for the expansion to be finished in 2005, at which point everyone currently housed in the library will move into the new building. Renovations of the old building are projected to be completed in 2007. Temporarily, the School of Information and Library Science (SCILS) will get one floor and IT will get another floor. It was pointed out that SCILS and IT are not actually departments.
Arguments in favor of the proposal:
If these two departments are not relocated, the library will not gain any new space and will not meet accreditation standards. Space has to be planned for in advance. The master facilities plan is being revisited now, and the needs of IT will be addressed.
Arguments against the proposal:
Information Technology (IT) has been moved around to temporary spaces for the last few years. Currently they are housed in three different places. We need stronger language to address the situation of the two departments being asked to move. Many universities have a merger of library and IT. It may be shortsighted to talk about having a library without technology in 2009. We will have different faculty and administration in 2009, so perhaps we shouldn’t be setting policy that far in advance. Why not ask the administration to find a place for these two departments to go now, or at least by 2007?
A motion was made to refer the issue to the Technology Committee. The motion was seconded.
Supporters of the motion felt that this would allow a resolution to be written that would address the needs of the library as well as the other two departments affected. Opponents felt that the library should be able to address their concern in this resolution and a separate resolution should be written to address the concerns of IT and SCILS. The technology committee could focus on addressing IT’s space needs. A. Paulson will raise the issue with President Adanti in the meantime.
The motion to refer failed on a voice vote.
The original motion passed on a voice vote.
Student Policy: Preregistration (attached to 4-17-02 Agenda)
The floor was turned over to C. Schofield-Bodt, chair of the Student Policy Committee. Because the original motion seemed no longer timely, she offered the following as a substitute motion:
The faculty is deeply troubled by the abundant shortcomings of the Banner online registration system. Whereas the registration process is the gateway through which students must pass in order to take part in the higher education process, and whereas the new Banner on-line registration system is neither intuitive nor accurate in its representation of student records and university requirements, therefore the faculty expresses its extreme dissatisfaction with both the system and the process for implementing it.
Chair Schofield-Bodt went on to detail the troubles one student had when trying to register online at the library. Some of the trouble included: It was not clear where online to go to register, it was not clear what information was asked for at log-in (PIN vs. Date of Birth), and there was very little feedback regarding successful completion of the registration process.
Some Senators wondered whether the substitute represented a resolution or a mere statement. There was widespread agreement that a more detailed resolution was need, which would outline what should be done about the problems, but there is no time to craft such a resolution this semester. Finally, it was noted that the proposed substitute did not address the point of the original motion, and the substitute was withdrawn.
On the original motion, J. Dunklee called the question. The motion to call the question failed.
P. Petrie offered an amendment which was itself amended so the last sentence of the resolution would read:
Be it resolved that the SCSU faculty most strongly objects to the limited registration period for fall, 2002 and advises that the closed registration dates should not exceed 3 weeks time, and should reopen at least one week before course sections are canceled on the basis of insufficient enrollment.
The amendment passed on a voice vote.
S. Bulmer moved to strike “And, whereas, the registration section of the SCSU website does not indicate a closing date for fall 2002 registration;” The amendment passed on a voice vote.
The resolution passed as amended on a voice vote.
Student Policy: Student Misconduct (attached to 4-17-02 Agenda)
The resolution passed on a voice vote.
Announcements
President Paulson noted that he and C. Petto had attended a recent meeting regarding Banner implementation issues. Of special concern is the fact that the implementation of this system was imposed on SCSU by the CSU central office. In the contract for Banner, the central office allows that registration policy be driven by Banner, which means that sound academic policy is not what drives registration policy. In President Paulson’s judgment, this is “ignominiously stupid and anti-academic.”
This behavior by the central office is made even more troubling in light of the recent letter from Cibes which details yet another technology contract made by the central office without consulting faculty.
S. Judd asked whether Police Chief Prokop had ever followed up on his promise guarantee that the rights of protesters would be protected regarding Mr. Barak’s visit. The Secretary noted that the guarantee was on the record. P. Brucker noted that she checked into the cost of the event and that she was convinced the event would pay for itself.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Volkman
Resolutions Passed:
S-02-15 Regarding Fall 2002 Registration Dates
S-02-16 Regarding Student Misconduct