Connecticut State University AAUP Council
Thursday February 16, 2012
CCSU-Nutmeg Room, Memorial Hall
Present: V. Nair, H. Shakun, S. Adair, J. Jones, M. Levin, K. Buterbaugh,
J. Kavanagh, J. Madison, M. Shea, D. Brown, R. Gladstone, A. Dawson,
D. Matthews, E. Cowles, T. Rosso, M. Ganon, D. Sims, P. Petterson,
K. Weiss, S. Holt, C. Pope, P. O’Neill, C. Stretch, L. Williams, G. Kain, R. Wood
Others present: E. Benson, L. Cunningham, L. Feroe, B. Gallo, S. Greatorex, K. Jacobi,
S. Larocco, M. Malinowski, P. Nguyen, C. Schiff-Greatorex,
K. Robinson, G. Holder-Winfield, S. Weinberger
1. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Board of Regents Vice President for CSU, Dr. Louise Feroe
Welcome and introduction of Steve Weinberger, Board of Regents Vice President for
Dr. Feroe initiated the discussion of the new organization by stating that the BOR has no
new vision for CSU, and she doubts that each CSU’s own individual visions/directions
will change. Dr. Feroe also discussed some benefits to merger:
1. There will be only one system office, not two
2. There will be more faculty positions
b. The BOR will be able to meet the needs of each campus more efficiently (less
There will not be much change in teaching courses, curriculum approval, or program
change approval. The forms have changed, but not the day-to-day business of the
This is an organizational change, not a mission change. If we keep our main goals in mind
(both system-wide goals and those of individual institutions and departments), we can
educate students to a higher standard.
Please note: the following is paraphrased; it cannot be interpreted as a verbatim account
of the conversation.
President Nair: How do you envision the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC)
Dr. Feroe: I’m not sure, but it is modeled after the Advisory Committee to the Board of
Governors. Its specific functions are still being determined, but the law does stipulate that
there will be two meetings between the FAC and the BOR per year. The FAC will be
consulted on faculty-driven issues. For example, the FAC is being consulted about the
President Nair then provided background information regarding the bill proposing the
merger. AAUP proposed the FAC; it wasn’t part of the original proposal. The FAC is
necessary because curricular matters must be informed by faculty.
One concern is whether or not there will be a mechanism for meaningful faculty input on
curricular decisions. For example, CSU faculty members did not get draft documents of
recent BOR actions until just before the actions were to take place, which was very short
notice. Also, it would be good for faculty to have input on drafts of documents before
they are released, not after.
Dr. Feroe: It’s hard to determine the appropriate time to solicit input. The Academic
Affairs Committee first saw an early version of the articulation policy in January. The
matter was tabled and was taken up again in February. It was then sent to faculty for
The pattern of the BOR is to act more quickly than has been the case in the past. The
pattern is to look at a draft, think for a month, then act.
If faculty members want input, they should keep an eye on Academic and Student Affairs
M. Shea: What would you imagine the reaction at the CSU campuses to be once transfer
agreement comes out without input from the curriculum committees or provost?
Dr. Feroe: The BOR wanted an outcome. The target endpoint would be a seamless
pathway from community colleges to state universities without students having to repeat
courses. The real work is yet to be done; faculty must talk about curriculum. The BOR
doesn’t write curriculum, but it does set policy, which is what the policy draft is. The
policy is not curriculum.
M. Shea: Some faculty members are disappointed because it looks like administrators (the
BOR) are dictating curriculum. How pervasive is the transfer problem?
Dr. Feroe: 80% of the complaints I receive are due to problems with transfer (although,
this is a subset of students). Transfer problems happen too often. This is a real issue for at
least that subset of students.
S. Adair: March 2 (afternoon) is the next meeting of the FAC, and the Academic Affairs
Committee is meeting in the morning that day, so the FAC will not have a chance to
provide input before the subcommittee meeting.
Dr. Feroe: There is a meeting on the March 9th, during which the Academic Affairs
Committee wants to talk about the input from the FAC. However, I want to stress that the
committee does want to move fast.
G. Kain: The bigger problem is that community college students take several classes
simply because they want to, and then they change their majors several times. That is why
they end up with 140 credits.
Dr. Feroe: Right, that needs to be said out loud. That’s not our fault. But we still need to
publish a road map for students to follow for their majors. They need to know which
classes will lead them toward which degree.
M. Ganon: By what mechanism will the faculty committee provide input?
Dr. Feroe: We don’t want to dictate that. I asked the committee today, and they suggested
talking to provosts, curriculum committee heads, and senate presidents. Also, the BOR
wants this done for a number of departments by July 1, 2012, but I sincerely doubt that
that timeline will be in place much longer, as it is unrealistic.
There have to be conversations on each campus to figure out how to structure
conversations between the BOR and the faculty. The articulation agreements should be
built around competencies, rather than syllabus by syllabus. These conversations have to
take place before anything else can be done.
S. Adair: One problem with the proposal for road maps for degrees is that expectations
for sophomores, for example, might be very different from one institution to the next.
Dr. Feroe: This is an issue that has to be put on the table immediately; is it the case that
there can be one freshman or sophomore path? If not, we have to discuss articulation
major by major. That might be problematic.
S. Larocco: Even if there is a seamless transfer from the community colleges to the
universities, the problem remains ill defined because it is not learning-driven.
Dr. Feroe: That’s a good point.
J. Jones: Campuses have begun to craft counterproposals. Should we continue that?
Dr. Feroe: The committee would be willing to read counterproposals.
T. Rosso: At least 90% of faculty members were against the merger. Morale is down.
Please convey to the BOR and legislators what our workweek is like. Our workload
report reflects that.
Dr. Feroe: I am not of the opinion that faculty are underworked and overpaid. I will be
happy to tell the committee.
A discussion of reassigned time, and what faculty members do with reassigned time,
followed. The importance of reassigned time was stressed, and Dr. Feroe was receptive.
Dr. Feroe ended by saying that she was always willing to talk, listen, and revise what she
does. The BOR has no goal to oppose faculty wishes. However, we have to educate
students without increasing costs every year. Dr. Feroe will attempt to bring issues that
affect faculty life to us as soon as possible.
4. Approval of the minutes of January 19, 2012
Moved and seconded.
The minutes were approved with one abstention.
5. Legislative Report - Betty Gallo
B. Gallo: thanks to people who came to testify about the articulation agreement. It made
a difference. Please keep doing it. Please continue to talk about how new legislation will
impact full-time faculty.
The governor’s budget has $1 million set aside for new faculty.
We need to come up with ideas about language for bills.
Sb40 (the remediation bill): what motivated it? Beth Bye cited a statistic that only 12% of
remediated students graduate; therefore, remedial classes cause failure. By eliminating
them, graduation rates will increase. J. Jones suggested entering the phrase, “Time is the
enemy” into Google to find a page that contains information on the topic.
B. Gallo asked for suggestions for dealing with Sb40. President Nair asked for volunteers
to generate talking points for us to take to the Legislature. The following council
members volunteered: C. Stretch, J. Jones, J. Madison, J. Kavanagh, and V. Nair.
6. Discussion with Peter Nguyen from UCONN AAUP.
Mr. Nguyen discussed aggregating power between unions, particularly sister unions
(UCONN and CSU). We need to work closely together during these challenging times.
There are attempts afoot to de-professionalize educators (e.g., Governor Malloy has been
discussing eliminating tenure from k-12, and these initiatives rarely end with k-12).
We also need to protect faculty primacy in the running of our institutions.
There are several issues that have been faced by UCONN of late:
a. change in leadership
b. initiative to offer more online courses (online courses raise intellectual
c. intellectual property issues regarding research discoveries
d. tuition increase
e. diversity issues: an attempt to hire a director of the Office of Diversity was
f. Governor Malloy has proposed that UCONN and UCONN Health Center and
the medical examiner’s office become one budgeted entity.
g. There is a new sister chapter of AAUP at the UCONN Health Center
Mr. Nguyen called for legislative coordination and communication between UCONN and
7. Resolution #2-4-12
RESOLVED, That the CSU-AAUP Council authorizes the expenditure of $3,495.00 for
the renewal of the eBallot Annual License ending 3/23/2013, pursuant to
the provisions of the Votenet Solutions eBallot Renewal Agreement
Moved and seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
8. Resolution #2-5-12
RESOLVED, That the CSU-AAUP Council authorizes a donation of $300.00 to the New
Faculty Majority Foundation which supports the work of the New Faculty
Majority: The National Coalition for Adjunct and Contingent Equity. .
Moved and seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
9. CSU-AAUP President’s Report
a. January 24th meeting of the Higher Education Consolidation Committee
President Nair indicated that the articulation policy was mentioned at this meeting.
There was also discussion of full-time faculty positions. Five-million dollars will be
set aside for 50 new full-time positions for 17 institutions. There was also a discussion
of reassigned time and its cost.
b. Selection process for the members of the FAC – possible revision by the legislature.
c. CBC (collective bargaining congress) East Coast Regional Meeting
J. Jones made the following report: Peter Nguyen made a presentation on contract
campaigns. Angela Hewett is the new DOS director. Maryland legislation will allow
higher education faculty to unionize. A dues increase is being discussed.
d. Other - Nothing further to report.
10. Ad Hoc Committee (on Transition to BOR) to WOO-BOR
The committee met last week. April 19 is a possible date for a town hall meeting; the
BOR has to confirm. The next meeting will take place next Thursday.
If the town hall meeting is scheduled for April 19, then the council meeting will begin at
11. Faculty Advisory Committee to the BOR – S. Adair
Last Friday was the first meeting. The next meeting is March 2. At that meeting, two
co-chairs will be chosen. Also, preliminary bylaws will be established. The committee is
currently collecting input from faculty on the draft proposal for the transfer and
12. National AAUP Elections – J. Jones
M. Ganon is a candidate for Treasurer. President Nair is running for Council 9, and Jane
Hikel is running for an at-large Council seat. J. Madison is running for the 2011 election
that is being re-done. Please visit the website www.aauporganizingforchange for
information on endorsing the candidates. V. Nair:
13. Chapter President’s Reports
There is some concern about the new calendar. President Nair referred to the letter
from David Trainor about the issue. He is willing to talk with Dr. Feroe about it, and
he asked the chapter presidents to send him a list of specific concerns by March 1.
J. Jones offered a new resolution:
IN SUPPORT OF AN ACT FOR STATE EMPLOYEES AND WORKPLACE
WHEREAS, the CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY-AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS (CSU-AAUP) defines
workplace bullying as a "a pattern of coercive, insidious behavior used by
one person to gain or exercise power and control over another person and
creates a harmful work environment"; and
WHEREAS, workplace bullying has also been defined, by the Work Place Bullying
Institute, as the repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more
persons by one or more perpetrators, taking the form of verbal abuse,
such as threatening and humiliating or offensive behavior that
interferes with or sabotages and prevents the completion of job-related
tasks (Work Place Bullying Institute, WBI); and
WHEREAS, according to a Zogby Survey (2010), 54 million or 35 percent of all
Americans have reported incidents of bullying in the workplace, and
another 12 percent have been a witness to it; and
WHEREAS, a 2007 Zogby survey indicates that 45 percent of targets suffer health
problems related to bullying, such as stress, loss of sleep, severe anxiety,
depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, reduced immunity to
infection, stress-related gastrointestinal disorders, hypertension, path
physiologic changes that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease
and other such conditions; and
WHEREAS, the same survey indicates that targets can suffer economic harm through
termination, demotion or denial of promotion, and, in 70 percent of cases,
targets are forced to leave their jobs voluntarily or involuntarily ("Worry
for a Living? Workplace Bullying Report on Abusive
Workplace," APA Monitor on Psychology. Volume 37, No. 7
July/August 2006); and
WHEREAS, although 42 percent of bullied employees file a complaint with their
employer, 60 percent of such complaints are ignored; and
WHEREAS, the majority of those victimized by this form of harassment are not
members of a protected group; and
WHEREAS, workplace bullying, which is generally not prohibited by law in the United
States, is four times more prevalent than illegal harassment or
discrimination based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, age,
disabilities and veterans status; and
WHEREAS, fearing possible retaliation, as occurs in 52 percent of cases, victims often
suffer in silence ("Worry for a Living? Workplace Bullying Report on
Abusive Workplace," APA Monitor on Psychology. Volume 37, No.
7 July/August 2006); and
WHEREAS, every worker has a right to be treated with dignity and respect and to work
in a safe and healthy environment, free of verbal and nonverbal abuse,
intimidating body language, retaliation and any form of hostility; and
WHEREAS, 17 states, including New York and Connecticut, have introduced Healthy
Workplace Bills to correct this injustice, and in Connecticut previous bills
have also been introduced to study the problem among state employees,
and some states have begun initial passage of the legislation, for example,
New York, where the State Senate passed the bill in April 2010; and
RESOLVED, that the CSU-AAUP supports legislation to examine the prevalence of
workplace bullying in the state of Connecticut's workforce.
Moved and seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
There has been discussion about a forum to discuss four-credit courses.
There are a number of searches for full-time, tenure-track faculty.
There will be a campus-wide discussion on articulation on the Tuesday after spring
There are two faculty commissions being elected by the senate Pursuant to Article
5.18. One BOR member has committed to visit WCSU on March 12, and two other
members are expected to visit as well. They will visit classes and talk with student
14. Staff Reports
S. Greatorex: the issue of using TIAA funds to buy into the hybrid plan has been resolved.
There are pending issues with transferring into the hybrid plan, particularly for individuals
without Social Security. Richard Blumenthal has agreed to help with this. There’s a
“question and answer” sheet going out to all the members regarding this issue.
15. Old Business
16. New Business
The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m.
CSU AAUP Secretary