university
SENATE
April 20, 2005
SC 202 – Midtown Campus
Meeting convened at 3:35 pm
Members present (alphabetical):
Joseph Aina, Mike Wilson for Aram Aslanian, Rick Bassett, Ming-Ling Chuang, Sara
DeLoughy, Mary Dever, Abe Echevarria, Robert Eisenson, Catherine Ferrigno, Kevin Gutzman,
Carol Hawkes, Russell Hirshfield, Karen Koza, Tara Kuther, Sam Lightwood, Elizabeth Popiel,
Denna Grasso, James Munz, Vijay Nair (President), Jeffrey Schlicht, Katrina Smith, Edwin
Wong, Robert Whittemore
Guests present (by department/division):
Faculty
Social Work: Marjorie Steinberg
Education/Educational Psychology: Katherine Campbell
Administration
President's office: James Schmotter (President)
Arts & Sciences: Linda Vaden-Goad (Dean)
Ancell School of Business: Allen Morton (Dean)
Media Center: Rebecca Woodward
Institutional Research & Assessment: Jerry Wilcox:
University Library: Russ Gladstone
I. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Pres. Nair:
1) The President approved all three Senate resolutions passed at the March meeting:
R-05-02-04: Bylaws of the Committee on General Education
R-05-02-05: Revisions to the Bylaws of the Research and Development Committee
R-05-02-06: Revisions to the “Reassigned Time for Research” procedures
2) There will be two Senate meetings on May 18th, at the West Side campus:
a) At 3:30, the 2005-2006 Senate will meet to elect the officers for the next
academic year. 2005-2006 Senators from the departments and constituencies
should be present at 3:30.
b) The 2004-2005 Senate will have its last meeting. All current Senators should
be present for that meeting.
3) The minutes of the February meeting were distributed at the March meeting (extra
copies on the table); The minutes of the March meeting were sent out by e-mail
yesterday morning; hard copies are in front of you.
western connecticut state university . danbury . connecticut 06810
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
2
4) Also in front of you is a memo from the Chair of the Committee on Distance
Education, a matter to be considered under Other Business.
4) Finally, I think our Presidential inauguration last Friday was a great success. If it
pleases the Senate, I would like to extend our congratulations and welcome to President
Schmotter. I would also like to congratulate Dr. Koryoe Anim-Wright and Dr. Carol
Hawkes, the co-chairs of the Planning Committee and all of the people involved in the
planning and the execution of the event for a truly remarkable job. And a special
acknowledgement to Dr. Fernando Jimenez, Dr. Kevin Isaacs, and the faculty and
students in our music department for the magnificent music at the ceremony.
5) Now, to give us an update on the Values and Vision initiative, President Schmotter and
Dr. Delcourt.
Dr. Delcourt – Good Afternoon. We wanted to give you an update (and) at least some closure to
part of the “Values and Vision” process and let you know that we have an initial report, “Values
and Visions: Present Perceptions and Future Directions”. This report is available to you in a
couple of places: through ERES and through the Senate website. Vijay thought that the Senate
website was the easier one to get into and download.
Please let everybody back in your schools and departments know that this information is
available:
1) the process we went through;
2) the timeline;
3) the themes that we came up with;
4) the information that was presented in the March 5th conference;
5) and the results of the different sub-groups from the .
Dr. Schmotter would like to let you know… what the next steps are.
Dr. Schmotter – Thanks, Marcy. And again. I want to thank the Senate and my friend, Vijay
Nair (whose picture was almost as prominent as mine in the local papers and, I must say, better
looking, too) for what was really a memorable day not just for me but I think for WestConn on
Friday (at the inauguration). I think the University really did this right and I was just the excuse.
It was the University celebrating itself.
The “Values and Visions” process really informed what I said (in the inaugural address) on
Friday. I am taking what I’ve heard in this process, putting it together with other things I’ve
learned, and really working from the vision (of)… those four pillars I’ve talked about (in the
inaugural address). I’m serious about using them to direct us in a broad sense as we go forward.
More specifically how will (we) use this (“Values and Visions”) document and other work that
the Values and Visions team has done?. I hope that all departments, schools, non-faculty areas
in the University will think about these (recommendations) as they do planning, will think about
these as they strive toward continuous improvement.
(The document) will also be the jumping-off point for the UPBC to look and create a new
Strategic Plan for the University. It’s tied toward the financial side, which will be their main
task for next year.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
3
In the shorter term, (it will assist members) of the senior staff, where we’re going to look at these
issues, (to) determine what sorts of Action Teams we need to assemble (and) to address issues
that go across different departmental lines (such as): enrollment management (which affects
(both)) the academic side and the student affairs side; the public identity of the University (which
goes across the areas). We’ll be looking at (such) things.
We’re going to be developing a kind of administrative agenda to go forward based on this
foundation, but I want us to have (a continuing) conversation on a number of the issues that have
started. The Values and Vision process just kicked things off. We need to continue to talk about
this and the many, many manifestations in which we’ll be… (working together).
Again, I thank the folks who worked so hard on this project. I really appreciate so many people
in the community stepping forward and offering their two cents, three quarters, five dollars, eight
million dollars! Whatever the value of your input was, it’s very, very valuable to me as a “new
guy.” I guess I can’t claim to be the “new guy” anymore, but it’s really valuable to me. The
vision I’m enunciating, I don’t think is mine, I think it’s ours. Thank you all.
II. MINUTES
Motion: The Senate shall approve the minutes of its February 2005 meeting. (Munz/Ganchev)
Hearing no comments, motion passed with four abstentions.
The March minutes, recently distributed, will be taken up at the May meeting.
III. OLD BUSINESS
Pres. Nair advised there was none.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A.
Pre-employment Background Verification Policy
Pres. Nair - Included in the Senators’ packet, a memorandum from the Dean of Human
Resources, dated March 18, 2005. Attached to that, the policy established by the Board of
Trustees. Dr. Whittemore wants to begin the conversation.
Dr. Whittemore – Thank you. I hope you’ve all had a chance to read the memo from Mr.
Spiridon. What I’ve given you are two documents. One,… entitled “Background thoughts for a
motion to be presented at the April Senate meeting,” which I hope to do. But more importantly
that motion is intended to promote our discussion or possibly postponed decision, (in order to)
carry these issues back to our departments (to) subsequently reconsider (here in the Senate)
The second document I’ve given you is double-sided. One side is a copy of what is currently on
the website, a “Consent and Disclosure Form” that all potential employees will be asked to fill
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
4
out. On the other side is an excerpt (and it’s only and an excerpt) from the Application for
Employment. This excerpt is specifically to point to the item at the bottom of the page (on the
application itself) that’s about previous convictions, whether criminal or military.
… I don’t want to spend a lot of time going over the first document, … because I hope you’ll
have time to look at that on your own as you think further about this. But I do want to say that
my own concern grows out of a conversation with members of my department. We’ve not had a
department meeting to consider this as a department motion, but the department did feel that it
was pressing enough that (the matter) should come to the floor of the Senate in order to promote
a conversation for all of us in (our departments) to consider carefully the implications of this new
policy.
(As I read the current policy), certain information can disqualify a candidate from further
consideration for a position at the University; (furthermore), that disqualification will come or
could come from the Office of Personnel Services (Human Resources).
My department members (Social Sciences) with whom I’ve spoken feel that the policy, as it’s
currently constituted, is consistent with the (broadly conceived) idea that we want (an
employment process) that insures honesty and integrity in the hiring that we do. But we feel that
the measures being invoked exceed that goal and in some cases are simply unnecessary. I think
some would categorize them as being intrusive.
At the end of that longer memo, on page five, I just want to show you where it ends up. At the
very least, as part of (our potential) motion, we are asking that the policy of this nature, which
has such a profound impact on our future colleagues and potentially on ourselves (since
“subsequent review and advancement” could be contingent upon this kind of personnel review)
(that we have an opportunity to review)the consent and disclosure policy that we’re asked to
embrace.
… We’d like to see the grounds on which (this revised policy) did come to the Board; we feel (a
need to know this) because this policy extends, in so many ways, to have such a vast impact….
Furthermore, we’d like to see an account, if possible, of the discussion of this policy (by the
Board or its designated committees) when it was adopted. Unless the meeting at the time of the
Board was an Executive Session, we think it’s a reasonable request that, as a public institution,
considering a policy such as this and its impact on… faculty… participation in the peer review
process, that there be a careful reconsideration and at least a presentation of the nature of the
discussion that lead to the adoption of the policy.
Without being alarmist, but wanting to point to the implications of this, if you would go to the
second document (the Consent and Disclosure Form), perhaps you’ve had a chance to read the
second, third, and fourth paragraphs. It’s relevant that we notice that among the items being
considered for investigating our backgrounds before being hired (including the usuals, such as)
references, include “credit background, driving record, character, past employment, work habits,
education, general reputation, personal characteristics, standard of living, civil judgments and
liens as well as any information about criminal convictions background consistent with federal
and state law.”
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
5
What’s interesting about that paragraph is that on the back side of the paper provided to you (the
Application for Employment), there’s a special note that says that nobody is required “to disclose
existence of any arrest, criminal charge or conviction, the records of which have been erased
pursuant to Connecticut general statutes.”
It seems that we have a contradiction here in the adoption of this policy and we’d like to have
somebody, certainly, attend to that along with the other issues raised in the memo, the
background (statement for a possible motion) that I gave you.
Looking again (at the Consent and Disclosure Form), in the second paragraph, in the event that
an investigative consumer report is conducted, it says:
I understand such information may be obtained by personal interviews with my
acquaintances or associates or with others with whom I am acquainted or who may have
knowledge concerning my character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or
standard of living. I understand such information may also be obtained through direct or
indirect contact with former employees, employers, schools, financial institutions,
landlords and public agencies or other persons who may have such knowledge. I
understand they have the right to receive notice about the nature and scope of any
investigative consumer report requested within five days after the company receives my
request or five day after the investigative consumer report is requested, whichever is later.
(Among faculty), a peer review is based on the notion of that as potential colleagues, we are the
ones who determine the qualifications of those with whom we will work and with whom our
students will work. I think that issues such as “work habits, general reputation, personal
characteristics, standard of living” are irrelevant. I think they’re intrusive and I would like to see
the grounds upon which we think, as a university, that these items are relevant to our place as
colleagues at an institution of higher learning. So I’m bringing this to the Senate for purposes of
discussion. I hope the discussion will generate a motion and then perhaps further consideration
with your colleagues in your departments before the next Senate meeting.
Pres. Nair – I’m glad I have my job already! I just want to point out that a couple of things.
Chuck Spiridon, Dean of Human Resources, sent an email saying that he regrets not being able
to be here because he had something else planned for today before he realized this was on the
agenda. The other thing is that the Consent and Disclosure Form that you just quoted, I
personally find it very disturbing. But I do want to point out one thing. If you look at the Board
policy itself, on page two, the required verifications are the following: social security, prior
employment verification, residence (I’m not sure what that means; I think it may mean
“residency”).
Dr. Whittemore – In the (background statement) I presented, it does say that we imagine
(“residence”) to mean “residency.”
Pres. Nair – Yea, I’m not sure. Criminal background and sexual offender database search? The
other things is that motor vehicle records and all those other things, credit verification, are not
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
6
required for all positions. But they may be done if (they are) any one of the requirements for the
position, determined by persons unknown (at least from this document).
Dr. Whittemore – The background document that I gave you does go through these points, (one
by one, at least) first thoughts (in response to them). You may have other (reactions) too,
among them being that although this (background statement is) particularly thinking about
faculty positions, we assume the implications for others are understood.
Pres. Nair opened the floor for discussion.
Dr. Bassett – I think background checks are needed… because people don’t always disclose
everything they should. If a criminal were to slip in…. People don’t always put things on their
resume that they’re embarrassed about or they’re trying to hide. (But) I don’t think that the
University is going to dig that deep, as you’ve mentioned here, for lower level positions or entry
level positions. But I think that if somebody is going to handle money, I don’t think it’s
unreasonable to do a credit check.
I was an employer for a lot of years and I wish I could have done this with prospective
employees that we had. We had a lot of people come in and slide their credentials by and we had
a lot of surprises after the fact. I am an employee here now, but I would not mind being subject
to this if I had to be; …I would certainly understand the employer checking to make sure what
I’m presenting is accurate. I just can’t see the university spending $100,000 on a background
check (like the FBI does) because we’re not talking about classified work here.
(Furthermore), I think this is probably a standard form that this company (Sterling) uses that
covers a lot of different areas as well. Maybe the form could be tweaked; maybe they could
customize it for what we need and get rid of some of those things, or base (the needed items for
review) on position.
Dr. Kuther – My concern is (that we should) clearly stipulate what we’re looking for (with) each
position; because right now (the scope of what is potentially being considered is) so enormous.
What if, for example, I was arrested and convicted of a crime for which I “did” thirty days, does
this mean that I am disqualified for the job? I mean, there’s nothing there (to prohibit that). So I
think it would be a matter of stipulating as to which positions should get which (specific)
searches and what would disqualify someone.
Dr. Schmotter – Well, I’ll say something because (I was unaware). I was in the room when this
was discussed, and it wasn’t…. My colleague may be a little alarmist there, but this is really
bizarre stuff and that’s not what the Council of Presidents heard. I’m really hoping we can get
Chuck Spiridon here to talk about this.
The idea was to implement a background check which will be implemented in different ways for
different positions. I think the faculty, it was basically verifying degrees and those sorts of
things – degrees, residency, the case of criminal record– if you acknowledge that’s fine.
(inaudible) I think that was going to be tied in at the end in a selective kind of way, not across
the board. I think Chuck can explain that better. For example, someone working in the financial
area, we would want to check those kinds of things. I went through the full Board (review
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
7
process) just last year, but people (inaudible) representing who asked about my character, my
driving record, and my credit record.
Bt the I think that the idea was to apply this (policy) with a certain degree of common sense. I
think the issues that are raised are good ones…. We should talk about them so that everyone is
clear about what this is about. I don’t see it as threatening, but I think everyone else needs to
come to the realization and feel not threatened by it too. And probably Chuck is the best person
to explain how the (review) will be used. …We are obviously not going to spend, as Senator
Bassett says, $2000 on a credit search for a maintenance person, or the full board. Although we
could do a criminal check if that person is involved in, say, Residence Life. We’ve had a recent
incident of someone who’s working in Residence Life, who had not disclosed criminal things in
his background that were very relevant to his being on that staff. So we need to know this kind
of stuff. The idea is to apply some rules of common sense. You’re absolutely right, though,
This does not seem common sense to me at all. And again, Chuck is the best person to explain;
unfortunately, he’s away today.
Dr. Steinberg – I think this kind of overkill is a result of The US Patriot Act and the political
climate of the country and we should be wary. I appreciate you bringing this up. Taking the
next step is that the point at which these qualifications or these searches are going to happen in a
candidate’s exploration of a job, should be sooner rather than later, (in order not to) use up either
the candidate’s time or the (duration of the) hiring process.
Pres. Nair – If I understand it correctly, I think when they do the checking, that comes at the final
phase of the search.
Ms. Ferrigno – I think that it’s a little vague and invasive. It really pries into people’s personal
business that may not be relevant. And as far as pending criminal charges. if somebody hasn’t
been convicted yet, how are you going to hold them accountable? Then they’re (subsequently)
acquitted and now they’ve lost their job opportunity for something they never really did. I think,
that, unless there’s a strict criterion, because this is so vague that it could get worse, I think, in
the years to come.
Dr. DeLoughy – I’d like to share the experience of the Finance Department with this – it kind of
comes at (this policy) from a different perspective. I agree we need clarification. I agree with
what has been said here so far.
But we selected a candidate, the last day of Spring Break, which was March 25th, and to date
(April 20th) , the background check has not been completed. So we have not been able to make
an offer to this candidate and I do believe if she didn’t have multiple reasons for coming to work
at Western, we would have lost her. So we’re kind of sitting on pins and needles, not knowing
exactly what’s holding (the process) up. I believe Dean Morton might be able to add some
information here. As I understand (the matter), (the delay is connected to) the inability to verify
a Master’s level or undergraduate level degree that was earned at a foreign institution. But we
completed our search, we’ve gone through the process, we have a very desirable candidate, and
we’re trying to keep her on the line. But I don’t know how much longer she’ll wait for us. I feel
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
8
a bit frustrated not knowing exactly what’s happening, but it’s actually out of the Search
Committees hands at this point.
Dr. Morton – I can talk about this briefly. I’ve been in contact with Human Resources every day
for the past three weeks. What’s happening is, we need to verify all the degrees and they’re hard
part to verify a degree that this person got in China. …There’s a language problem and all kinds
of problems; but I think this will be worked out. But what Dr. Deloughy says is absolutely true:
there are bugs to be worked out. All the other stuff checks out; (as to a) criminal (record), that’s
not the problem. The problem is the academic part, which for our purposes (is an important part
of the hire).
Pres. Nair asked whether, in the case of a position requiring a terminal degrees, such as a Ph.D.,
“what do you care about the bachelor’s degree? Eventually you will get the transcript, but in
terms of hiring somebody?”
Dr. Morton – I agree with that, and what I basically told Human Resources is that this has been
going on long enough, in the next couple of days, let’s just bring this to a close. Because we
talked to the school that awarded the Ph.D.; obviously, if we have a transcript, we can verify that.
I think beyond a certain point, it may be overkill to go back and find every degree. But I think
it’s part of the process and until we (clarify some aspects of the current policy), we have to
adhere to the process.
Dr. Schmotter – I’m sorry. I heard about this (holdup on this hire) yesterday and I find it a bit
alarming. Because obviously the Ph.D. (is the terminal and important degree, so Human
Resources) has the information. I think the problem is we outsource to this firm (Sterling). If
(the verification) was done by us, we would make that call at the department level and it would
have been taken care of. I find that really problematic. We do have to look at this kind of thing.
Dr. Wiss – I think some of the things I’m going to say are to Peter and I hope others underscore
my concerns. I’m a bit concerned about what the problem was that initiated this whole policy. If
there really was a problem (the Board was) trying to address, I would really like to know about
that. Because otherwise… it’s in the contract that you could be fired if you falsify your records
and I know people have been fired for that. So, I’m not why this heavy-handed policy is
necessary; I’m very curious about that. I think I’ve heard about procedures (that are) too slow
already; …this adds a very unnecessary way to prolong (the hiring process).
The language is very vague and I think it’s also arbitrary. If I read the memorandum from Chuck
(correctly), it says that an offer can be made, as the Dean of Human Resources says, and that it’s
just a contingent offer until things are verified. Well why hasn’t that been done in this
(Department of Finance) case?
Also, at what point do all of these contingencies and this policy kick in? I think there’s huge
potential for arbitrary and capricious applications of these rules that concerns me. The concern
in a large way is about civil liberties, (which) is also (important) as well. Who, when anyone
applies to the State (for employment), has the right to investigate people’s backgrounds without
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
9
really good cause? In the Finance Department, it might make sense to investigate someone’s
background. But couldn’t that be part of the whole procedure when we design a job description?
Of course, it’s necessary for someone who works in a residence hall. There are clearly important
reasons to investigate people’s backgrounds. But this policy is just so huge and covers so much
territory and I think that’s lost. I know this is really such an obscure academic argument. But
we are higher education; we’re not IBM. And I really would like us to protect some little trace
of principles in higher education of peer review, trust, respect for colleagues and not get into this
extremely paranoid attitude that people are going to be lying to us.
Pres. Nair – I just want to mention one thing. Even if we don’t do all these checks, just for a
candidate to get this memorandum, I can see a lot of people saying, “I don’t want to go to this
place,” and they would withdraw their applications. If they were given a memo like this… I
would!
Dr. Whittemore – I was going to say that… this would add to delays in searches that we know
can already be … substantial…. In response to Dr. Schmotter’s observation about this service
(WES), this so- called credentialing service (to which a candidate pays $100 or so to have their
institutional records accredited) is actually (a business that) translates a transcript of grades you
received (as part of an application). But WES is not an institution that goes out and does reviews
of universities in China (for example) to see if they’re legitimate institutions. Yet it’s often
(supposed by us) as a service that does that. It does not. I spent some time looking into this
some years ago when we had a candidate who wanted to come here as an undergraduate from
a… Chinese university. The Dean of Academic Affairs wanted to oblige this candidate to pay
$100 to have his institution somehow reviewed. So I called WES and they said, “We can
provide you with a translated transcript.” I asked, “Well, do you have any institutional review?”
“Well, no that’s not part of our service.” (This)… concerned me because, (though) it did turn out
this young man did come to us and has been an extraordinary student here, I’m wary of this
notion that if you come from an international university, where these records may be difficult to
obtain or may be not even certifiable that this somehow diminishes the viability of a candidate
for a position at our institution
.
Dr. Vaden-Goad – I have one comment. I think we lost a Chemistry candidate because of the
length of time it now takes. And we had just an incredible candidate; the recommendation to
hire had been signed by Barbara Barnwell, by me and by the Vice President. And then it went to
Human Resources and we didn’t hear for two weeks that somehow they had trouble getting in
touch with the candidate. But we didn’t have any trouble, or the Chair of Chemistry didn’t have
any trouble getting in touch with the candidate. So I don’t know what was wrong. But now the
candidate won’t even answer the Chemistry Department back. I don’t know if they were sent
this (Consent and Verification Form); I don’t know exactly what happened. But I do believe we
have entirely lost him, just a great candidate who had all American degrees, so it was not even
out of the country.
(This policy) could present real problems for us. I realize that part of the problem may be that
we are sort of at the beginning of peoples use of this…. But I do believe that the introduction to
this Sterling Testing Service sheet is daunting and if it was received and (a candidate) didn’t
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
10
know the school and didn’t know the people (here at the university), I think it really could
influence how (a prospective hire felt) about the institution. I don’t know what else could be
done, but it is a problem and I believe (the process) just caused a real big problem for us.
Pres. Nair – One reason we have a probationary period is that if you happen to, by chance, hire a
person who is unsuitable, you do have 60 days (within which to respond to such a situation).
Seriously.
Dr. Popiel – Along with what Katy (Wiss) said, the idea of innocence, well, she didn’t use these
words, the concept of someone finding that I may have lied and then dismissing me, is very
different than this (Consent and Disclosure Form). I’ve only been here four years; I have
nothing to hide, (but) I would not have signed this and I love being here, but I would not have
signed this. It’s just too, too wide open. I have absolutely nothing to hide, but I would be
offended.
Dr. Katrina Smith – I think the scope is a problem. Someone would not be hired based on a
negative review… (for example) of my personal characteristics by an ex boyfriend? I think for
me the scope is so broad; but I can see (that) there is some sense (to the policy). (To determine
whether) I have the degree I said I had, that makes sense to me in this setting. But whether we
need different scopes for different jobs, which is a lot of paper and a lot of policy…. There is
some value to some of this and some of it bothers me.
Dr. Popiel – I think checking things that are relevant are important, sex crimes, et cetera. Where
relevant, I think that’s all very important . But I also think, they ask you questions, have you
been convicted of a crime? No. If you’re found to have been lying, that’s very different than
opening yourself to this huge, huge undertaking.
Dr. Ganchev – I think it could be useful if we had some information about whether some other
institutions of higher education (employ such a policy). I haven’t heard about that but….
Dr. Nair – Let me tell you what I know. I’ve been informed, I haven’t seen the actual paperwork
on this, but I’ve been informed that the University of Connecticut and the community technical
colleges have been doing this for quite some time. I do not know what exactly they do, but they
do have a background verification policy, possibly similar to this, possibly not. But that’s what I
was told.
Dr. Whittemore – I don’t see the relevance. I appreciate you sharing that; I respect my
colleagues elsewhere. But the fact that another institution (adheres to such a policy) in no way
explains why as an institution, in cutting our own profile and establishing our own grounds for
drawing colleagues to our work together, we should somehow use (other institutions’ choices) as
a reason for us to (model ourselves after them).
Dr. Nair – I don’t know what it is that they do…. I’ve served on a lot of search committees, and
the search committee has traditionally done the verification of credentials as well as (a history
of) prior employment. That’s what we check. In this Board policy, you know, there are six
things that are required of all candidates and the rest (inaudible) verification, and sexual offender
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
11
is required under the Board policy. To the best of my knowledge, we have not done that except
in very special cases. So I agree with Dr. Wiss. …Traditionally, the search committees are
considered the best judges of what is appropriate to check on a candidate. If you are the
chemistry department, the presumption is that the search committee of the chemistry department
would be in the position to say what do we need to know about this person to teach in the
department. Shifting that… to somebody else…, I find it a problem. So the bottom line for me
is that I would very much like the search committee to be involved in the beginning of the
process in establishing what would be appropriate background checks for a particular position.
(I suppose) it’s entirely possible for another department, perhaps, to know the sexual offender
database is an appropriate part of background check or (to consult) criminal offender (histories).
I don’t really know.
Dr. Hawkes – I agree that it would be logical to do background checks of different types for
people applying for different kinds of jobs, (for example) the person in the residence hall or the
person who is going to teach Chemistry. But if it is true that not all of this material would be
required of every candidate, wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a document that specifies the
different levels? Because personnel changes, and what one person would apply through this
candidate or that candidate, might not be what the next person would (do). It would seem to me
that… it would be a good idea to put that in writing so that we would know.
Dr. Aina – I was going to ask if this is already in force?
Pres. Nair – The Board of Trustees has actually passed this policy, yes.
Dr. Aina – We’re supposed to be using it now?
Pres. Nair – It’s in effect.
Dr. Smith – So would the Board of Trustees then be subject to this type of check?
Pres.. Nair – I don’t believe they’re “employees,” but I don’t know.
Dr. Bassett – One of the things that we need to do, given that the policy is in place (or some form
of it is going to stay up here) (in order) to speed up the search process is to make sure that our
ads say that we’re going to do background checks and also to make the candidates, the final three
or the final six, know. And maybe the information that we get in the background checks, if
we’re verifying universities and things of that nature, we could pass onto Human Resources so
that we could speed up the process. So while the candidates are talking to the Chemistry
Department, to tell (Human Resources) everything (the committee knows) and allow them to
verify (that information, including what) HR wasn’t able to get at…. Just the thought that if the
search committees are actually doing some of this work as well.
Dr. Aina – I don’t think Human Resources has control over Sterling Security Systems.
Dr. Bassett – No, but… the search committees do a fair amount of background checking. We
don’t do everything… but we verify degrees and past teaching experience (such that) if HR is
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
12
having trouble getting that, we could pass it to Sterling, if they’re having difficulty finding this
stuff out.
Pres. Nair – I think my point was… where the process starts to be part of deciding what kind of
checking would be appropriate for a particular position, if you were hiring a Chemistry professor
(or not just) in the Chemistry department… they probably don’t want a criminal background
check; why would they want it?
Dr. Bassett – Why wouldn’t they? Why would you not want to know if you have a sex offender
or a potential one.
Pres. Nair – I’m just saying that whoever made the decision, in my judgment, at least the search
committee should be part of that decision whether (particular information is to be sought out).
Dr. Aina – I don’t think they should get a credit check either.
Pres. Nair – A credit check is not as much of a problem for faculty.
Dr. Bassett – If you get car insurance now, you get a credit check.
Dr. Whittemore – I was going to say that one of my concerns here about any service that collects
information about any of us, is that indeed as you point out, Dr. Bassett, it may be that we don’t
have to know everything that Sterling Testing Systems finds out about us, but I don’t want
Sterling Testing Systems to be illegitimately inquiring into the domains over which they have no
reason to be inquiring. … (For example, what about) somebody who’s married to a spouse who
was abused as a child, who is receiving therapy from certain kinds of counselors (whose
knowledge, by law) has to be reported to the state. Under suspicion alone, (what is thereby
reported) becomes part of the official record. That has nothing to do with the behavior of a
spouse, but it now becomes part of potential consideration of their character. I think this stuff is
precarious. I don’t think we have any right to be knowing it and I’m against (the risk).
Ms. Ferrigno – So this was already passed by the Board of Trustees?
Pres. Nair – Yes.
Ms. Ferrigno – Is it a mandate that we follow it?
Pres. Nair – The university, yes; that’s the expectation.
Ms. Ferrigno – So we don’t have any say, or we do?
Pres. Nair – Well, I want to look into Dr. Whittemore’s suggestion, in the beginning of this
conversation, for the Senate possibly to request that the Board of Trustees reconsider the policy.
Dr. Gutzman – On page two of the memorandum, number one says, “Candidates will be
informed during the pre-employment process that the selection is subject to completion of a
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
13
background investigation acceptable to the university or the CSU System Office.” My
understanding is that while the Board has mandated that the university have a background check,
it has not mandated that we use this particular form. This paragraph seems to indicate that the
university can decide what form we would like for Sterling Testing Systems to use. So my
feeling is that we could at least say, even if we can’t have each department have its own form,
we could at least devise forms for different categories of employment, like a professor form,
Pres. Nair – Dr. Hawkes was suggesting that earlier, but I will point out though, having said that
on page two of the policy as I mentioned earlier, according to what is on paper here, there are six
things that are mandatory for all positions. So it would appear that you have to do those six
checks on everybody.
Dr. Gutzman – Yea, but these six categories, while they might include extraneous material when
it comes to some job categories, they aren’t nearly so broad as what’s in paragraph three on the
(Consent and Verification) Form we have here.
Pres. Nair – Yea, I think the form can be reworked.
Dr. Gutzman – I think that’s the main problem.
Pres. Nair – Well, actually, …I think the people in the Social Sciences Department, from what
I’ve heard, and other people too, the policy itself is a problem, not just the form.
Dr. Gutzman – Are you saying that you thought there should be no background checks of any
kind or do you think the material here was, some of it, extraneous?
Dr. Whittemore – I think the feeling of my colleagues (and I) was… that certainly there are some
background information that we need. … (But) even with the limited criteria we (currently) use,
already there are reasons why the interpretation of data leads to unreasonable delays. I think this
is consistently (the likelihood with) these blanket policies. You begin to set up a kind of pattern
of bureaucratic process, which can (further) encumber what is essentially a peer review process.
I think the other concern is that ultimately the decision about whether somebody will or will not
be continued to be considered rests with the (office of the) Dean of Human Resources. This feels
to me to be a step between peer review and the President that is simply inappropriate. I think it
does change peer review. If any place where such a decision should be, it should be in the
President’s office, not in the Office of Human Resources.
Pres. Nair – Also regardless of whatever the actual practice may turn out to be here, under the
policy, if the Office of Human Resources were informed by Sterling (or whoever is hired to do
this thing) that there is a problem with this person’s background, the search committee under this
policy as it stands, will not know what the problem is. That may or may not be the practice, but
that’s what it says, so that’s a problem. So you recommend three people to the Dean, and the
Dean sends it off to Human Resources (or however it works), and Human Resources sends to
Sterling, and then you don’t know why somebody was not offered the job.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
14
And then, this person has but five days to respond to the particular information. If (a candidate
is) on the other side of the country, it takes two days to get the mail and takes two days to deliver
it back. So you have one day to respond and the response, as I understand, is not whether or not
this particular information is relevant, from the candidates point of view. It is rather (whether)
the information is accurate, which is different.
Dr. Echevarria – I think with these parameters, six and six – the six main ones and the six
additional ones, I think there’s a menu here to pick and choose from, for each search committee
to pick the one that is relevant to that particular search. I don’t think it’s necessary to go through
all of these (parameters)..
Pres. Nair – If the search committees are allowed to do that, that’s fine.
Dr. Echevarria – (So why not just) call the FBI?! I mean, they do searches and they come up
with criminals, still.. So I think it’s for each search committee to decide.
Pres. Nair – Yes, I agree with you.
Dr. Wiss –I haven’t had a chance to read this accurately, but it looks like all you can dispute is
whether your credit check is accurate.
Pres. Nair – That’s how I read it too
Dr. Wiss – Right, so what if they have false information from other people? That’s the concern
as well and I’m wondering what Sterling can do with this information once they collect it.
Again, I just got this, so I don’t know, but can they hold onto (the gathered information)? Can
they resell it? What happens to it once they collect it? And then, I’m also concerned about the
cost to the university. Is this the most efficient use of resources?
Dr. Whittemore - I think that gets back to your earlier observation – what are the grounds upon
which we launched ourselves into this? Does it justify the expense and the time that it’s going to
take?
Pres. Nair – It’s a lot more than that. I’m only concerned that people will not apply or withdraw
their applications… the long-term effects on the faculty. Ok, so what do you want to do? Do
you want to wait until May, until we hear from Chuck?
Dr. Schmotter – Might I suggest, I think a lot of really good ideas have been raised here; I think
it’s a question of how this gets implemented…. I think we have to understand how to implement
this and I think continuing this dialogue with the Dean of Human Resources, so he can hear this
and we can go forward to create a policy that makes sense and is not embarrassing as this is.
Dr. Gutzman – I would like also to ask my colleagues to request of the Board that they do give
us the minutes that the Social Sciences (Department has suggested would be of interest). We
should have a look at their discussion about this.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
15
Pres. Nair – I have no problem making an inquiry into getting such minutes as there may be.
That’s not a problem at all; I’ll make sure we get the records of their discussions. They may not
be as detailed as one might imagine.
Dr. Whittemore – Would it make sense to make a motion, (in order) to keep this on the floor of
the Senate?
Pres. Nair – No, it is already. It will be at the next meeting. I will make a note here saying
“postponed. What I think we will do, I’ll ask if Dean Spiridon can be here for the May meeting
and I think probably I’ll talk to Chuck before then to see what might assist in the conversation of
the Senate meeting. Ok, this will be back on the agenda in May.
Dr. Whittemore – I’d say that what I gave out as background notes, many of the things that
we’ve raised have been very important and various points are pointed out here, so if you want to
take this document to your departments, some of the issues are there and visible for your
continued discussion in your own departments. Thank you.
Dr. Nair – Ok, that’s what we’ll do.
B.
Summer curriculum-related activities
Dr. Markert – The proposal in front of you was recommended by CUCAS. We’ve been
following these basic guidelines for about the last three years…. But last year we had four times
(in dollar terms) as many requests as we had dollars available to spend. So we needed to come
up with some basic guidelines (for) ranking the proposals that came into our committee.
Basically, we have an advisory role to the Academic Vice President in this regard. CUCAS sets
up a sub-committee of three faculty members (one from each school) that makes the advisement
determinations and sends them onto the Academic Vice President. Historically, for your
information, those (recommendations) have been (usually) accepted as they are presented to the
Academic Vice President (from the Committee). So, since we’re using these guidelines and we
have been for the last few years, we wanted to get them out there so people can see them. We’ve
asked that they be included in the catalog. If you have questions about specific guidelines…..
Dr. Ganchev – Does the order of the guidelines have any significance?
Dr. Markert – Not really, I think they are all used…. I think the most important ranking one is
the number three, that just says preference ranking of types of proposals. But most of them seem
to be exclusionary and that’s not judging quality of individual projects. Through these
guidelines, I think that’s still something that the sub-committee does do. I think historically,
after we have taken out the ones that don’t meet these basic guidelines, there’s generally a
proportional sharing of the funds for the remaining candidates. We feel the reason for some of
these exclusions are that there are other committees that are more appropriate to address the
proposals to, for things like training, or other sources for assessment, et cetera. We really feel
these funds should be for the development of curriculum. Now I said assessment, if some
assessment process determines that it’s appropriate to change the curriculum, and then the
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
16
department wants to work on the development of the courses or programs, et cetera, then sure,
that would be appropriate for this funding.
Dr. Whittemore – A couple of questions. On number one, it looks like you’re saying that
curriculum development does not include such things as training workshops, with peers in your
profession who are together thinking about… (or) training each other on new approaches to
teaching. …I wonder if you talked about this. Because if your assessment doesn’t include that,
then on item three, taking an existing course and changing the way you teach it would also not be
acceptable.
Dr. Markert – …There’s a preference given to someone who comes forward to develop the
outline or the syllabus or the details for a new course. That person is given a preference in
receiving funds over someone who is already teaching say, an existing course and wants to
change how they teach it. That doesn’t mean, that’s not exclusionary; that’s a preference that we
exercise.
Dr. Whittemore – Can you talk to us a little bit about how you arrive at that preference? Is it just
an arbitrary….
Dr. Markert – It seems that reworking your existing course seems to be something that you’ve
already obligated to do over the course of time anyway. More so than someone who’s taking the
effort to present a new course. And so we feel that the second case should get preference over
the first case.
Dr. Whittemore – What about the workshop question?
Dr. Markert – Again, if you have someone who has a proposal in hand that is ready to go
forward in developing new courses or programs, we think that person or group of persons should
get a preference over what should get the money, over a developmental stage. You could apply
faculty development funding to go to a conference or develop a conference on something like
you describe.
Dr. Steinberg – I have concern about excluding assessments, since we are expected to be folding
into our curriculum assessment processes, which means building them into certain courses which
may require major revision of a course process, which we’ll visit again in another topic. But it’s
a red flag.
Dr. Markert – I think that’s an issue we’ve talked about in a lot of different forums, including
CUCAS and the Graduate Council. Where do the funds come from to do assessment? Is that
part of faculty’s normal workload? CUCAS is taking the position that the act of developing the
assessment instruments and doing that implementation of the instrument is not a role of
curriculum. It is not in essence curriculum development. (However), once you’ve gone through
the assessment cycle and you decide to implement a change that requires developing that
curriculum (as an outcome of) that assessment cycle, that is something that would come to this
Committee and be accepted. There are some assessment grants out there for faculty to apply for
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
17
(in order) to do… the assessment and come up with the proposal of the ideas (for which) you
could apply to this Committee for the actual implementation of those program changes.
Dr. Aina – I noticed that the word you are removing has “deadline of submission.”
Dr. Markert – No, nothing is being removed. This is an additional second paragraph to be added,
although the first paragraph up above stays as it is. The collective bargaining agreement through
activities, that stays there and then it has added, in the second paragraph, the basic guidelines to a
report is filed.
Dr. Wiss – I have two comments. One is, I actually appreciate Rob’s comment about training
because I actually think how we teach classes is perhaps more important than having new ones.
But then I also had a question about the phrasing of these things and I just want to make sure I
understand them. It looks like, in three and four, it says, “preference is given.” So you really
mean by that, that ranking. Whereas in (1) and (2), it says proposals “should be” and “can go.”
And I just wondered about the precision of that language. Is that also a “preference” or is that a
“shall”?
Dr. Markert – Number two is clearly an exclusion. Funds only go to full-time teaching members
covered by the AAUP contract. We’ve had situations where we in fact accepted people and sent
the name onto the Academic Vice President and that office checked and said that person doesn’t
qualify, that person cannot participate and get the stipend, and then the applicant rolled it over to
the subsequent year.
Yes, number one is giving us some room to say that, if nothing else, then yes there might be
room to give money if it’s available. But clearly our preference is for these specific things and
that’s why they’re all worded the way they are. So yes, if no one else came with proposals and
came up with a proposal to do training, whatever…. The money can only be salary funds, it
cannot be for expenses, for lunches, for anything like that. That’s things we had to knock out.
And the last thing I just wanted to mention, in number five of the report, it is required that a
report be filed. I don’t judge the reports on quality of what’s included; just that it basically
answers the question of what (the applicant) did with the money. I always made a point to
remind people, if they haven’t filed a report, I’ve been keeping on that for the last two years.
We’re in the third year now of using these guidelines, we’ve kept reports on the first two years. I
think one person in one year and one person in the second year has not complied. But neither of
them have come back and asked for money again. Should either of those people come back and
ask for money again, as long as they get that report in before the next evaluation of their new
request, they will still be entitled to get the funds.
This year I had someone who was actually in that situation, and in more than one person in the
past, and I went out and reminded that person and said, “You’re up again this yea;, you need to
get it in before we consider you again this year.” And they did. Last year, we also had a
situation (in which) someone was excluded because, after repeated reminders that they did not
send in their report, that person, I talked to them on the phone, they sent me their report. There
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
18
was some kind of miscommunication or something and their same proposal came back again this
year and it was considered this year.
Dr. Whittemore – You said that for something like a workshop, an institute training session, this
would be something people could go to faculty development funds for?
Dr. Markert – Yes.
Dr. Whittemore – Isn’t that money expended by the end of the spring term usually?
Dr. Markert – There’s an annual cycle broken up into quarters. I think the June 1st to September
cycle is first.
Dr. Ganchev – I think there’s room for improvement in the coordination between the Committee
and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Because if the Vice President gets the report, he
probably, one would think that this report would go to the Committee and vice versa. But this is
not always the case.
Dr. Markert – In the past, that may have been true. I made a point to make sure I got them all.
First of all, the wording in effect says it’s supposed to go to the Chair of CUCAS. But people,
because the award letters come from the Academic Vice President, it is his business to make
these awards, they send those reports to him. I made a point, first of all, I send out emails
saying, “Please send me a copy.” And I also check with Terry Buzaid this year (I didn’t want
any of those kind of confusions) to make sure I got the ones the office of the Vice President has.
In fact, this year she had a total of one. So I took care of almost everybody who had a grant
Dr. Ganchev – This could have been (avoided) if the Vice President’s letter said to not just send
the report (to that office) but send it also to the Committee.
Dr. Markert – I don’t think those letters have gone out this year yet. Decisions are being made
this week; I will ask them to do that.
Pres. Nair – Hearing no further questions for Dr. Markert, Pres. Nair called for a motion to
accept the proposed changes.
Motion: The Senate shall accept the proposed changes for the CUCAS prioritization of grants
for summer curriculum-related activities. (Schlicht/Ganchev).
Pres. Nair: Since this is policy, the only way we can act on it today is if there is a motion to
suspend the rules, so we can act upon this and it requires a 2/3 majority. If there is no such
motion, than this will be on the agenda for the May meeting.
Motion to suspend the rules so the Senate could act on the main motion (Schlicht/Ganchev)
passed with a two thirds majority.
Main motion to accept the proposed changes accepted with four opposed, and no abstentions.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
C.
19
CSU-AAUP research grants
Dr. Wong – Having heard from “several faculty and colleagues” that textbook writing proposals
had not been funded by the CSU-AAUP grants because they “were not considered research” and
therefore not granted support, Dr. Wong wanted to find out if this was an official policy.
I would consider the development of a text book to take considerable effort and involves things
like literature, research and contacting experts and evaluating data and findings… and I think
even for those of us who do what’s traditional laboratory or field research, we consider textbook
development as a worthy professional activity. So, I guess I wanted to bring this up in the Senate
to see if we can find out whether or not there really are official policies toward restricting this
definition of research…. If nothing else, (I would like) to let the Senators know that this kind of
problem might exist and to let our constituents know that this occurs. I just wanted to start a
conversation.
Pres. Nair – It might be an excellent question, (although) there is no such policy. Just so you
know, I’m assuming that everybody knows what CSU-AAUP research grants are all about.
From this campus, the people who serve on the committee are Mike Gilles from Education,
Burton Peretti from History, and Richard Halliburton from Biology. That changes probably in
two years. The AAUP may appoint one person; I appointed Burton Peretti last year and this year
the Administration appoints one person. They appointed Mike Gilles. These are all faculty
members. And the third person, Richard Halliburton, is a joint appointment by the AAUP and
the Administration. Those are the three people from this campus. I do have a list of all the
people from the other three campuses.
I made the phone calls and there is no such policy. I can confirm that the only policy in
existence is what you get in the application form itself. So if you want to apply for the CSUAAUP research grant, they give you this thing to fill out and that has all the policy there is.
There is no other policy.
The people from this campus do not make a judgment (in terms of merit) on the applications
from this campus; I guess you already know that. But the people from Central and Eastern make
judgments on the merit of the applications from Western; that’s how they work it. After they
have done that, there is a ranking. The minimum you can get is, I think, is 5 and the maximum is
60 or something. And those rankings will come back to this campus and the folks from this
campus will determine on the allocation of funds, based on the priorities established by the folks
at Central and Eastern. That’s the system they use, so you know, I can see a judgment being
made by the people, they have to make judgments on what is to be funded.
Hearing no further comments, Pres. Nair moved to the next item.
D.
Deadline for mid-term grade entry into Banner
Pres. Nair – Jeff Schlicht had prepared a memo to the Senate on this, but issues related to it had
not yet been resolved with Irene Duffy, Registrar. Irene had explained to Pres. Nair that the
issue is with the academic deans, not with the Registrar’s Office.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
20
Dr. Schlicht – That may be the case. But before we get to that, in the minutes from March, page
nine, item D, it looks like something was postponed last month, I wasn’t here, it was supposed to
come up again this meeting, it says postponed until the April, 2005 meeting. I just wanted to
point that out.
Pres. Nair – Oh, thank you, it’s the common hour; it’s gone. The Student Life Committee has
asked me to take it off the agenda. So they have no new proposal to make and they told me that
they may bring it back to the Senate next year. Your name is on it, is that what you’re saying?
That’s because you made the motion.
Dr. Schlicht – No, no, I just wanted to know why it wasn’t here again. Ok, the reason this issue
came up…. In our department (Health Promotion and Exercise Sciences), we’re receiving some
more heat from above to make sure that these… grades are in on time. So, the fact that they’re
pushing that made us really evaluate how practical it may actually be. For example, this
particular semester, I was actually away the week prior to spring break and then spring break
itself. And because I had to proctor an exam the week I was gone, which was one of the
foundations of the grade, (from which) I was going to give the mid term grade, I couldn’t enter it
into Banner before they closed Banner down, so you can’t enter anything else in.
… Why do they close Banner down for mid-terms grades; why don’t they just leave it open? I
don’t understand that. Irene Duffy had said that they had to close Banner for final grades
because (the results) influence financial aid and some other things. So that I could understand.
But I don’t see the reasoning for mid-term grades; (Banner) should just be open. So on Monday,
when you get around to entering it in, (granted, you’re supposed to do it on time) but there may
be reasons that you couldn’t. (But were Banner still open), at least you could put (the grades) in
and then a student can access (his or her results). I still have students who come and ask me why
their mid-term grade (aren’t available).. So I have to tell them, I can’t enter it now, so they come
talk to me, which is probably a good thing, but….
Dr. Hirschfeld – One of the main points for the mid-term grade is, particularly for freshmen, to
know as soon as possible.
Dr. Schlicht – …Mid-term grades are supposed to be in (to facilitate) letters from the Deans of
the schools to “at-risk” students …so they can address this. So there’s a practical reason… (but)
that’s a separate issue (from why) they close Banner at all? …This semester, the deadline was
right in the middle of the semester, which I assume a lot of people probably use as a week where
they offer something that is graded that would influence the grade, the mid term grade. So that
means if you’ve offered this during the eight weeks of classes, you are supposed to have a grade
and enter the grades by Friday, by whatever time of day they close Banner down on Friday.
Let’s say you taught a Monday, Wednesday, Friday class and Friday was the day you wanted to
do this, how could you possibly grade it and get it entered on Friday? It doesn’t seem feasible,
so it seems like there’s a practical problem in terms of shutting Banner down on that Friday, right
in the middle of the semester.
Now… the shifting (of the deadline) when the grades are supposed to be in and when a student
can withdraw from a class (seems to be) the crux of the issue. If (a student is) doing poorly,
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
21
there’s a certain amount of time to react. This semester, I think (there were) three weeks
between when Banner closed and … the letter would be generated (on the basis of which
students could) consider whether or not they’re going to withdraw. Three weeks seems like a lot
of time in this day and age of email, etc. You’d think that grades could be turned around
practically immediately if we could email them, tell the students this is what you’re doing. They
should know within two days after the grades are in where they stand…. It shouldn’t take two
weeks to decide….
When I brought this up to Irene’s office, the first thing she said (was that) the information has to
go to the Dean and the Dean’s office has to produce a letter and that has to go out to the student,
an actual snail mail letter. So that seems to me to be a solvable problem. It should just become
an electronic process; why does it have to be a letter? Because not all students have a WCSU
email address?
That seems to be a big issue during the two years that I’ve been here, and hopefully we’ll resolve
that in the near future.. Why do not all students have a WCSU email address? They should just
be given one when they enroll. Now you have an address and you’re expected to go to that
address for important information. So, if we did that then that would solve some of this time
frame problem and we could push when the grades had to be back… so that the student receives
an email and they still have a week or so to react or something.
Dr. Bassett – I think all students have a WCSU email address; they just don’t use it. Can’t you
use private email addresses? But that aside, you can’t email grades out because it’s not secure
and private; that information travels and it could be intercepted.
Dr. Schlicht – We could send out a reminder saying, “Go out into the website, where you have
access to check the transcripts, and check your grades.”
Dr. Bassett- Aside from that, they all have access to Banner, and I’m sure most of them just
rush…. They probably are going to Banner, but there could be… a programming change that
could be made when they go in that alerts them (as to the availability of grades or the need to
recognize their status).
Dr. Vaden Goad – It’s a problem for all of us for different reasons. I don’t know how to solve it
either; we were talking about it the other day. It is hard when you have to have the mid-term
grades in. A lot of people do get them in on time; but then there’s an awful lot of people that
don’t. Somebody used the phrase, “a week of begging;” its really like several weeks of begging.
And then, when we get the list of students to create the letters and send them out, because we
often now get them later than we should, I don’t know how meaningful it could become to the
student.
So maybe we need some people to sit down and think together about what might be the
appropriate next steps to resolve this issue. I think we’ve done a lot of thinking about it, but
there might be some other people, too, who might want to sit and think together. Because in the
letter, it doesn’t say just, “Hey, you’re in trouble.” It has a lot of other guidance also, like you
know you should go see your professors, you should go see your advisor, here’s where the help
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
22
is. You know, a lot of things like that. I think the freshmen really need that kind of guidance, so
maybe there’s a way.
Vijay maybe you have an idea of how to get a smaller group together that might take up this
theme and the reasons for it all. Because Jerry Wilcox also did some analysis, looking at how
well mid-term grades predict final grades. I was curious about that, how meaningful are the midterm grades in terms of predicting what’s going to happen. So maybe pulling all that stuff
together in a smaller group, that wants to think about that, would be useful.
Pres. Nair – Let me make a suggestion, what if we were to form an ad hoc committee of you (Dr.
Schlicht), Dean Vaden-Goad, Irene Duffy, and (I would like one other person from the Senate),
Dr. Ganchev? Why don’t the four of you try to work out a solution and bring it back in May?
Does that make sense to you? Let me make a note of that.
Dr. Vaden Goad – Can Jerry Wilcox come along?
Pres. Nair – Yes, of course. Ok, the only person I really need to notify would be Irene.
Everybody else is here. Some people had their hands up, I’m sorry.
Dr. Whittemore – I have a question. I’ve never thoroughly understood why our withdrawal
deadline is so far into the term. It’s a curious thing to me and one of the reasons I got more
curious about it is I began to recognize, not in many, but in a few students (what seemed to be a
kind of) betting game: see how it’s going about the ninth or tenth week and then, “Oh, I’ll get
out!” And what that means is that if you’re in a course where you have to be working from the
beginning hard, it’s kind of like testing the water. ‘Maybe I’ll work hard and maybe I won’t.
See how it goes….”
This is curious, because most of the institutions (I haven’t been at that many before I came here),
but the withdrawal deadline was the end of the third week of each term. There was no exit. The
message (to the student) is, do your work. So, why, how did we get into this curious sort of three
weeks post mid-term thing? Does anybody remember? Is there historical memory about it in
some way? I would like to raise this as a, perhaps, next fall as an interesting discussion for us. I
don’t really understand that.
Dr. Lightfoot – In a related notion, it gets worse than that. No, it’s far worse. I don’t know
anything about the history of this; I’m new here and so it’s of a great shock to me. Today I had
someone come up to me who took a course from me two years ago and asked me (for a)
withdrawal. In previous semesters I have had conversations with students about the time
deadlines and I have advised them that what they should do is withdraw because they were
failing utterly and completely. And their resources would be better if they took other courses.
They went to their advisor, a present faculty member who was a former chair, and their advisor
told them, “No, stay in there because (later on) you can withdraw. To me, this doesn’t sit well.
Dr. Ganchev – I think there is a reason why students want to stay in the courses beyond the fact
that they hope to negotiate. Many decisions are made on the basis of the future credits they are
anticipating to have after the end of the semester. I got a call recently from a student who wants
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
23
to withdraw from a course but they don’t want to withdraw because somehow the housing, the
choice of housing, is based on what number of credits they will get. And this is also something
that’s probably not right.
Dr. Steinberg – This is really a question. Financial assistance to the Institution is based upon
when we can’t get the money, I believe that (this is relevant, and part of the question). When
does Westconn not get its dollars for enrollment? That maybe a reason why we’re delaying the
withdrawal.
Dr. Nair – Ok, we will have the Ad Hoc Committee report back in May about a solution.
E.
Assessment Committee recommendations
Dr. Wilcox – I am an insignificant instrument of the Assessment Committee, but I have served
for eight years as a member, have seen and heard a wide range of approaches and opinions
concerning assessment in general, and the assessment of student learning outcomes, in particular.
In those eight years, many Westconn faculty have increased their knowledge of good assessment
practices, as well as their skills in applying those practices. Just as importantly the university has
recruited faculty who learned about assessment as graduate students and are now ready to apply
their knowledge to the assessment of our programs and practices.
Each academic department now has assessment plans, but there is uneven progress in the
collection of information and the reflection on the meaning of that information for curricula and
instruction. Members of the Committee feel that in order to continue the progress we have made
we need to move to the next phase of assessment. Specifically, we need to move from the search
for best practices, to the application of pretty good practices for collecting and evaluating
evidence of student learning. We need to move from the formulation of plans to the
implementation of those plans, including the use of assessment information to improve teaching
and learning.
That really is the point, closing the loop to improve teaching and learning. We need to move
from a system that rewards people who oversee assessment, usually under duress as accreditation
deadlines loom, to a system that provides resources and rewards to people who routinely collect
and evaluate the evidence, from the overseers to the workers, if you will.
We need to recognize, also, that good assessment is a service to the university and it may also be
scholarly work, due for consideration in the promotion and tenure process.
Finally, we should commend the System Office for funding pilot projects . But we realize that
funding and reassigned time must also become available for routine assessment activities year
after year. We’re moving into the routinization of assessment and I believe we need to target
resources, whereas we have not done that terribly well in the past. Would anyone else like to
speak on behalf of the Committee?
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
24
Dr. Steinberg – Thank you for a masterful introduction. What the Committee is looking for is
support from our colleagues, recognizing that additional resources in terms of workload or
dollars would enhance the greater involvement of a greater number of faculty in this process,
which ultimately should be the goal of every department. We’re at a point where the purchasing
of instruments, the time it takes to adapt existing assessment models or tools to our particular
programs is incredibly time consuming. And there doesn’t seem to be a place for the resources
yet pledged by the institution to support this time in the process.
Dr. Hawkes – I come up here because I need to speak in semi-official capacity as a liaison with
NEASC and I certainly have a high appreciation for the work of the Assessment Committee. I
think that they’ve worked long and hard on this, and I certainly agree that where resources are
available it would be wonderful to have as many resources as we can to support this process. We
are, however, as you all know, obligated as an institution accredited by NEASC which is making
a very strong commitment to the student outcomes assessments. Assessment of the outcomes of
student learning. As a matter of fact the proposal of the Committee, here talked about “after
NEASC scrutiny subsides;” and I’m sorry to say it is not going to subside.
We have just received a copy of the revised standards for accreditation in which a whole section
is developed for speaking to this question of the assessment of student learning outcomes. It is
very strong and I might say that the State of Connecticut is also requiring us to do this
assessment. I think what we’re getting into here, as most of you know, when NEASC visited us
for our ten year accreditation a couple of years ago. They did commend a number of
departments, especially in the professional fields, for the good assessment of learning outcomes
that they were engaged in. But there were many other departments across the university, most of
them having stated goals and objectives, but had not as NEASC puts it, “closed the loop” by
assessing the implications of these and making any changes that might be indicated to improve
curriculum.
Now, NEASC has required us, we will have to make a report on our progress in this respect by
the fall of 2006. That’s just a little bit over a year away. And the expectation of NEASC is that
the outcomes of student learning will be done in every program, every service across the
university, every year. And while I certainly will commend the Committee for its work and I
certainly would agree with it that resources would be great to have, if we can put them in this
area, the fact is that we have decided and NEASC is aware of this, it’s been shared with NEASC,
that by the end of this year we do expect that every department will have the five points of the
simplest version of this. They will have their goals, they will have decided how they are going to
measure those goals… (change of tape). The cycle will then repeat and the so-called loop will be
closed, so that by this time next year, we will have gone through a complete cycle of testing,
assessing, deciding, interpreting, making changes as indicated and doing it again.
The only way that we can do this is really to have every department engaged in this activity and
to have a report on it included with the departments annual report to the dean. The dean will
then include it in the annual report to the Office of Academic Affairs. So that the
recommendation of the Committee to report only every three years, I’m sorry to say, would not
fit the requirements of NEASC.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
25
Now, it doesn’t have to be a terribly elaborate assessment. There are many ways to assess; you
don’t have to use, for example, a standardized instrument. You can use student portfolios, you
can assess a senior seminar, working in a senior seminar, a final project. NEASC, as a matter of
fact, advocates a number of different avenues into assessment. You don’t have to use that
standardized instrument, but we do have to have something in place in every department and
report it in (its) annual report each year. So I have to say, as much as I appreciate the feelings of
the Committee, the three year cycle would not meet requirements. The fact is that we have to go
through this, and report it, and implement assessment to maintain our accreditation which is very
important. On a simple form, it doesn’t have to be that elaborate. I agree (that) you can make
assessment much more elaborate, and some of that is good and the departments that are applying
for the grants for special projects in assessment, that’s great and they should go through with
that. But we have to have something in every department on an annual basis.
Pres. Nair – Let me just suggest that if you look at the end of that page, it says that what the
Committee is asking us to do is first, for all of us to go back to our departments and discuss this
matter and then, asking the Senate to pass a resolution supporting the recommendations this is
about. I just don’t see what difference it makes if the Senate were to make a resolution
supporting these recommendations when we have to do something with it. I just want to say that
I think there are other ways of dealing with is.
Dr. Ganchev – I just wanted to find out… what is the membership of this committee?
Dr. Nair – I have it right here, Assessment Committee – this is the membership:
Vice President for Academic Affairs, one academic affairs; one Dean of Student Affairs; a
university-wide coordinator, that’s Mr. Wilcox; a representative of the general faculty appointed
by the Arts and Sciences Dean for a two year term; three teaching faculty elected, and one
librarian (inaudible) elected, so forth. You get the idea.
(Unidentified) Each school has an Assessment Committee with each department represented;
that just began this academic year.
Dr. Whittemore – I really respect the work that’s done; I think we have to pay attention to
NEASC requirements. As a faculty member who has classes that are regularly 38, 40 in number,
I find that it curious that the argument (for departmental participation) is workload release for
doing assessment for administrative purposes. …There’s no reason why assessment isn’t a
reasonable expectation and in my department we’ve worked long and hard on this. We’ve been
doing assessment of methodology training for ten years now, I think, and we’ve now gone
through a much more elaborate review of our assessment process and continue to develop it.
one of the things that’s emerged in our department discussion is that the amount of time that is
being asked to do this is moving us further and further away from the one thing that we are
trying very hard to do: to teach classes that are oversubscribed, such that many of us simply
cannot do the kind of elaborate assessment that we want to do. We are increasingly pushed to do
less and less interactive assessment and increasingly using, what I consider to be, superficial
measures of accomplishment, including objective tests… that can be run through machines to
give us a quick score so that we can get on with our other business. I think what to me and my
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
26
department appears to be a legitimate exercise in determining the effectiveness of our work is
increasingly becoming something that we are now suggesting we should get course release time
for. This at a time when we don’t have enough people teaching the courses that we are already
supposed to be teaching. This feels to me a curious paradox and I really don’t know how we’re
going to work our way out of it….
Dr. Hawkes – I simply wanted to say that this does not pertain, necessarily, to assessment of
learning in a course but in the program itself. If you’re going to give a student a degree, …have
the requirements of that major been met? Does the student come out of the full major program
knowing what he/she is supposed to as a result of having elected that major? It’s not a class.
Dr. Campbell – I wanted to attend this meeting only because, in Education, we will have to
address course design and assessment system for NCATE, which is probably more elaborate than
the assessment… we’re talking about even for NEASC. We were just in Washington at a
meeting where it became clear to me if everybody will agree or not, that this assessment is not
simply an academic exercise. This is a politically-driven movement (to which) we will be
increasingly held accountable as the public schools in this nation… are increasingly asked to
devote more and more by time and energy to this activity called assessment.
For that reason the university really needs to look at what this whole process is going to entail.
Not that the point is that we’re not willing to work. But it is whether one is truly “able.” Talking
to colleagues at other universities in Washington who are involved heavily now, in the NCATE
processes, they have associate deans for assessment. They have six to twelve release credits, half
the full time people in the department, when they have more than one program. So that you
actually have three to four assessment systems offering simultaneously, they have people who
are coordinators of assessment, and even then they are overwhelmed. I just wanted to come and
speak to the fact that we need to educate ourselves about the scope of this endeavor. It is
enormous and it probably has more enormous political as well as educational ramifications.
Dr. Wilson – I think we’re thinking about this or conceptualizing it in an inappropriate way. In
other words, what I hear us talking about is classroom assessment and assessments of particular
students, or whatever. I think that we need to start thinking about it in terms of what Kay was
talking about, as a program evaluation issue. In other words, don’t talk about assessment here,
assessment is part of it, certainly, but we need to think about the way that you would go about
evaluating a program. So I would recommend that we think about that kind of operation, as
opposed to assessment.
Dr. Wiss – I guess what I would just say, I think that people misunderstood Rob. I think what
he’s saying is that all of these demands are taking us outside of the classroom and if the reason
we’re teaching students well, if we’re spending all the time assessing ourselves, how do we teach
our students?
Dr. Wilson – But that’s what I’m saying, if we think of it in terms of what Rob is saying, we’re
getting away from the issue that’s relevant to program evaluation. In other words, if we start
thinking about it as program evaluation, a lot of this stuff will disappear. (What he’s concerned
about is) just not that relevant to a program evaluation.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
27
Dr. Campbell – It’s time consuming, time and resource consuming.
Dr. Wiss – We’re already assessing individual students and taking them through the programs,
and I understand there’s a difference between assessing a student and assessing the program. But
professors are trained to assess students and I think they have a sense in our department that what
we’re doing is working. If you want us to formalize that and put it in a plan and put it on a sheet
of paper, fine. But let’s not overemphasize the importance of (assessment?) in our lives.
Pres. Nair – The question remains what do you want to do with this? If I could make a
suggestion, passing or not passing or supporting these things are not going to make a difference.
One thing that they asked is to take it back to our departments and discuss the matter, which is
reasonable. I would suggest that the issue of annual budget and reassigned time probably should
be taken up by the UPBC because I just can’t see what the Senate can directly do about that in
any practical way. Does it make sense to the Senate? Does it make sense for me to go further,
item number 1 and 3 to the UPBC, to see if they want to do anything?
Dr. Schlicht – Sure, because my (inaudible) is Rob had to say, we don’t want reassigned time for
assessment. We don’t have enough faculty members already to teach our courses; we are using
way too many adjuncts, so we don’t want to take a full-time faculty member and give them
release time, I don’t think, to do assessment necessarily. So there is a problem and I think people
should talk to their departments to get a feeling of what they want before we make any referral or
recommendation.
Pres.. Nair – I agree, I take back what I said; I think you are quite right. I think we will revisit
this matter at the next meeting and see where we want to go with this because it may be
premature to approach UPBC or anybody else. Anything else on that? Hearing no further
comments.
F.
Annual Reports
Pres. Nair - The annual reports… don’t require a motion to receive them because we’ve already
received them; you have them in your Senate packet:
a) UPBC annual report (No comments).
b) Academic Leave Committee report
Dr. Whittemore – On the Academic Leave Committee’s Report, is there a reason why the report
does not include, for the purpose of historical record, who was granted these leaves? Is it
inappropriate to list their names on the report?
Pres. Nair – I don’t really know.
Dr. Whittemore – Is there anybody from the Committee here?
Pres. Nair – It is my recollection, Dr. Whittemore, in this instance, everybody who applied did
receive the thing.
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
28
Dr. Whittemore – But I just think, for our own institutional memory, it’s nice to know who was
doing this.
Pres. Nair – I think, as best as I can remember it, I don’t believe the Committee provided the
names in the report. I think in the past what happened is that WestConn Report would list the
people who received sabbatical leaves. I think that’s how it’s been done in the past.
V.
OTHER BUSINESS
One item that was brought to us is from the Committee on Distance Education, … which… I
would very much like Senators to discuss in your departments and to revisit this in May. Russell
Gladstone is the Chair of that Committee… but what has happened is that on-line courses have to
go through the CSU Online office. (However), it appears that there was a rule made locally, at
Western, that for so-called “hybrid” or “blended” courses, 20% of the classes have to meet on
campus. The reasoning appears to be (that) if we do that, it is not a CSU Online course (but
instead it becomes) a hybrid or blended course so that we get to keep the money. The money
doesn’t go to CSU’s System Office. That’s where it stands. So some of the people who are
offering these courses object on different levels, including that the students don’t want to come
to campus, they only want to show up once as they have in the past. There’s all kinds of reasons.
Mr. Gladstone do you have anything to add?
Mr. Gladstone – We just would like to have input from the members here in order for us to
eventually make a recommendation from the Distance Education Committee to the Senate for
your consideration. Any discussion you have will certainly help us to understand the position of
the faculty and the Senate, to help us make a recommendation. We ask you to take (the issue)
back to the department. if you would. I’ll be glad to ask any more specific questions if you’d
like now, but understand that this discussion should take place at the next meeting.
Pres. Nair – One problem that the Distance Education Committee has is that they don’t have
enough information to make a recommendation to the Senate, and then subsequently to the
administration. Are there any other questions? I really would appreciate it if you’d take it back
to the departments and have a conversation and come back in May and give some feedback to
the Committee.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN (Munz/Schlicht)
Meeting adjourned 5:30 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D’Aurio – Recording Secretary
Robert Whittemore – Senate Secretary
WCSU Senate 4/20/05
29
WCSU Senate Resolutions
April 20, 2005
R-05-04-01: THE SENATE SHALL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF ITS FEBRUARY 2005
MEETING. Passed with four abstentions
R-05-04-02 : THE SENATE SHALL ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR THE
CUCAS PRIORITAIZATION OF GRANTS FOR SUMMER CURRICULUM-RELATED
ACTIVITIES. Passed with four opposed.