university
SENATE
May 18, 2005
WS 218, Westside Campus
Meeting Convened at 3:40 pm
Members present (alphabetical):
Joseph Aina, Rick Bassett, Ming-Ling Chuang, Abe Echevarria, Gancho Ganchev, Denna
Grasso, Carol Hawkes, Russell Hirshfield, Kathey Ierace, George Kain, Tara Kuther, Sam
Lightwood, James Munz, Vijay Nair (President), Elizabeth Popiel, Phyllis Ross, Jeffrey Schlicht,
Edwin Wong, Robert Whittemore, Katy Wiss, Rebecca Woodward
Guests present (by department/division):
Faculty
Education & Ed Psych: Katherine Campbell
Marketing: John Cronin
Computer Science: William Joel
Health Promotion & Exercise Sciences: Jody Rajcula
Psychology: Robin Flanagan
Administration
President's office: James Schmotter (President)
Academic Affairs: Gene Buccini (Vice-President)
Human Resources: Charles Spiridon (Dean)
Library: Russ Gladstone
Academic Advising: Lisa Peck
Media Center: Rebecca Woodward
Health & Public Safety Management: Luigi Marcone
Pres. Nair:
Two meetings of the Senate today, the first is the ’05-’06 meeting, for which the only agenda
item is the election of the officers. Two sign-in lists circulated: a) for current attendance (‘04’05); b) for ’05-’06, to determine who is in the Senate next year.
Opening Meeting of 2005-2006 Senate
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS;
1) Declining his own nomination, Pres. Nair called for nominations for the office of the President
of the Senate:
Dr. Kuther (Echevarria/Aina) No further nominations or objections: elected by
unanimous consent.
2) Call for nominations for the office of the Vice President of the Senate.
western connecticut state university . danbury . connecticut 06810
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
2
Dr. Munz (Kuther/Echevarria) No further nominations or objections: elected by
unanimous consent.
3) Call for nominations for the office of the Secretary of the Senate?
Dr. Schlicht (Munz/Aina) No further nominations and no objections: elected by
unanimous consent.
4) Call for nominations for the office of the Archivist.
Pres. Nair (Schlicht/ Echevarria) No further nominations and no objections: elected by
unanimous consent.
II. ADJOURNMENT
Call for a motion to adjourn this meeting of the Senate was received, and it was adjourned.
Final Meeting of the 2004-2005 Senate:
I. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Pres. Nair:
1) On the “Pre-employment Background Verification Policy issue, at the last Senate meeting a
request for the minutes of the Board of Trustees’ meeting at which the policy was approved was
lodged with the President of the Senate. You have in front of you the relevant section from those
minutes dated March 4, 2005 and also a relevant section from the minutes of the February 25th
meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee of the B.O.T.
2) The Center for Professional Development annual report: You have in front of you a revised
report. That will replace the one that was sent with the Senate packet.
3) The UPBC has submitted a revised annual report. That will replace the one received at the
April meeting of the Senate.
4) The terms of the present Senate officers, including myself, end on June 30th and the officers
elected earlier today will take over on July 1st.
Dr. Ross – Wanted to make a special acknowledgement to President Nair for “five wonderful,
wonderful years of exemplary service to the University as President of the Senate (much too long
to be fair), but really a tremendous service that you’ve done and the excellence that you’ve
done.”
Pres. Nair – Thank you.
II. MINUTES
Motion: The Senate shall approve the minutes of its March 2005 meeting. (Wiss/Munz)
No comments or corrections. Passed with two abstentions.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
3
April ’05 minutes were not yet available, but would be distributed before the September ’05
meeting of the Senate.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A.
Institutional Review Board update
Pres. Nair reviewed that during the November ’04 meeting of the Senate, a compromise
understanding was reached regarding the issues raised about the IRB. The compromise reached
was first, with regard to its by-laws, when the IRB is finished:
a) its bylaws will be forwarded to the Senate;
b) the Senate will make such comments as it chooses;
c) the Senate will forward the bylaws and comments to the President;
d) the President will approve, disapprove or whatever he does with the bylaws.
Second, the IRB will forward an annual report to the Senate, either in April or May, which is the
standard practice.
Subsequent to the November ’04 meeting, on April 3, Pres. Nair sent an email to Dr. Lund
reviewing this compromise. Dr. Lund responded, saying that a final check of the bylaws at the
April 18th meeting would be necessary, at which time she would send a copy to the President of
the Senate; after that time, the IRB would send an annual report to the Senate, which was
consistent with the agreement or the understanding which we had reached.
On May 21st, Pres. Nair sent a message to Dr. Lund, noting he had not yet received the bylaws,
to which Dr. Lund responded, saying that since the IRB is an administrative committee
(reporting) to Gene Buccini, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the bylaws revision
currently rested in that office. She noted that at the IRB’s final meeting of the year, a final
bylaws review and vote would take place.
Since no mention of anything about the Senate appeared in Dr. Lund’s response, Pres. Nair sent
a message to Dr. Lund asking for clarification. He noted that this “was not what I thought we
had agreed upon. I quoted Dr. Buccini, from the November meeting of the Senate, at which he
said (commenting on the suggestion for the compromise that I had offered) that ‘since I’m the
one who is ultimately responsible, I think that’s an excellent suggestion.’”
No further response from Dr. Lund has been received to date.
Pres. Nair did receive from Dr. Buccini on May 11th, after the Senate packets were distributed, a
copy of the IRB report that was submitted to Dr. Buccini for the academic year. Noting that he
was “not sure what exactly to do with the IRB report,” he did give a copy to Dr. Kuther but had
not had time to copy this for the Senate membership.
A copy will be available at the September Senate meeting unless something else comes to pass.
Checking the IRB minutes on electronic reserve, starting from November 2004 until March 2005
(the April minutes were not posted), Pres. Nair could not find any reference in any of those
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
4
minutes to the compromise that was reached at the November meeting. “So it’s unclear to me
whether that matter was actually brought to the IRB. The only sentence I could find was in the
minutes of the December 8th meeting of the IRB: ‘IRB members met with the University Senate
members and addressed concerns.’ That’s it. So, I don’t know what that means. Any further
comments on this?
Dr. Schlicht asked if the procedure for selecting IRB members was the concern at hand.
Pres. Nair – That was one of the concerns and I think the compromise reached was that to
continue as it has, the members were appointed by the Academic Vice President. One of the
issues raised was, is it possible to elect some of the members to the IRB? But that does not
follow the compromise that was reached. There are two issues, one is the issue of the bylaws
and the Senate having some input into those bylaws before they’re officially approved. The
second is the matter of receiving the annual report.
Dr. Schlicht – So, since we haven’t received a draft of bylaws, we have no input into the bylaws?
They should have passed the bylaws or will be passing bylaws shortly?
Pres. Nair – I don’t know. To the last email that I sent to Dr. Lund, I never received a response.
So I don’t know.
Dr. Ross recalled a reassurance felt by the Senate membership that the bylaws would be coming
to the Senate for review.
Dr. Schlicht – So what would be our course of action? I don’t know if there have been other
instances where the Senate has asked for something and never received it, what would you
normally do?
Pres. Nair – Noting that since, according to the minutes of the IRB, no action had been taken on
the bylaws, the only suggestion for the Senate would be to put this item back on the agenda at the
September meeting. “I’m willing to send yet another message to the Chair asking to please
respond and then put this matter on the Senate’s September meeting (agenda).
Dr. Whittemore agreed with this suggestion, asking that the Chair of the IRB be informed of this
fact. Pres. Nair, hearing no further discussion, will put it on the agenda for September and notify
the Chair of the committee that it is the first item.
B.
Pre-Employment Background Verification Policy
Pres. Nair – The policy was distributed at the April Senate meeting (at which time) Dr.
Whittemore also distributed some material and you have the excerpt from those two documents.
If you recall, we left the matter saying we would have someone from Human Resources, Mr.
Spiridon, at this meeting to tell us about what is going on with this.
Mr. Spiridon – Good afternoon. I believe now the Board of Trustees passed the policy, which
implements pre employment background checks on all new hires. It does not include those
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
5
(current) employees (who) are being promoted or being hired within CSU. It’s only new,
external hires.
… Sterling Testing was hired as the vendor to do the pre-employment background checks….
There are basically three tiers of checks. Which of the three tiers is done is position specific, and
we have been utilizing them for the last several months. …The feedback that we have received
from those potential new employees (who) are getting hired is generally positive, to be honest
with you. We have not received any negative comments from those new employees. That is
essentially a quick summary background. So I’ll be happy to try and answer any questions that
you may have.
Dr. Schlicht – Have you found that adding this new process has added dramatically to the hire
times for the school?
Mr. Spiridon – No, except for one… unusual case because it was checking a grade from China.
Sterling has turned over each and every one within a 48 hour period.
Dr. Aina – (I’m concerned about) the intrusiveness of some of the things (Sterling is) going to be
looking for in the new employees.
Mr. Spiridon – Well, let me tell you what they are looking for as it pertains to faculty positions.
They’re conducting an identity check, which is essentially Social Security number verification,
verification of past employment, verification of the educational background, verification of their
residence, a criminal history investigation at the local, state and federal levels, and a driving
history for only those positions where it is applicable.
Unidentified – What exactly do they do to check the residence verification?
Mr. Spiridon – That they reside where they (say) they reside.
Dr. Ross – I was under the impression that there was considerable leeway for them to do
character checks, including speaking to people who directly know the individual or who do not
know the individual directly.
Mr. Spiridon – They may speak to people as part of the employment verification.
Dr. Ross – That’s not a character investigation, which is the terminology I heard.
Mr. Spiridon – What I think some of the confusion may stem from is the “consent” on the
disclosure form, which the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that we give, that contains
language about character. Quite frankly, it’s “legalese” and it’s meant to be broad in case part of
the employment background reveals something undesirable.
Dr. Ross – Would it not be possible for the disclosure form or for the consent form to be specific
and limited to what you just said?
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
6
Mr. Spiridon – You know I checked on that, and the initial word I got back was no, it has to
remain as it is.
Dr. Ross – I don’t think it’s reasonable to evaluate the “palatability,” whatever the word would
be (as to) how bearable the process is, if one is asking potential employees (who are, after all,
pretty much at the mercy of the institution until they have a job). … I know I’ve heard that we
have lost some people who are not interested in signing such a (consent).
Mr. Spiridon – That’s not true.
Dr. Ross – That’s not true? Well this was a report, I believe, from one of the Deans.
Mr. Spiridon – Well, I’m telling you, it’s not true.
Dr. Whittemore – I think there was another issue that was raised on the floor, which was that
apparently, according to the policy as it was sent to us, that elimination of a candidate on the
basis of whatever information comes forward is, according to this policy, in your hands.
Mr. Spiridon – Mine and the President’s, yes.
Dr. Whittemore – That’s not what it says. It says it’s in your hands. And given the seriousness
of the issues that drive this policy, it seems to me that although your position is to deal with
employees once they have been employed, (the newly adopted policy would seem to put your
office) in a position to supercede the recommendations of a faculty hiring committee. I’m not
sure that any Director of Human Resources should be put in that position, partly because of the
(nature of the) oversight that you have.
(This would) seem… to be contradictory therefore to the power of any faculty hiring committee.
…Certainly, this is relevant as it sits in the Office of the President, because he’s the chief officer
of the university. In any case, I don’t see, in any of the (minutes of the) discussion of the BOT’s
meeting (discussing this policy) or from the BOT’s Administration Committee, any discussion
on this issue.
Mr. Spiridon – I don’t know what their discussion was. I can’t speak to that part of it. But I can
assure you that if the university is going to take action to eject a candidate, it’s my intention to
discuss that with the President, the reason that (an appointment) can’t go forward. (And) that is
for confidentiality reasons.
Dr. Whittemore - What can’t go forward?
Mr. Spiridon – Can’t (inaudible) with the President and my position.
Dr. Ross – But that would be discretionary because the policy doesn’t require the President’s
involvement.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
7
Mr. Spiridon – No, but I’m not sure that that’s true. But to be honest with you, I would not put
myself in a situation where I am unilaterally, without a discussion at the President’s level
(making such a decision).
Pres. Schmotter – And the President would not put this HR person or any other one in that
position, as well. That kind of call would never be made, in terms of if there was an issue that
had to be addressed.
Dr. Ross – Isn’t there any concern, I mean there obviously was concern (I was ill at the last
meeting, I wasn’t here) but concern about the message (such a policy, as stated, would send) to a
new, potentially new employee.
Pres. Schmotter – I have that concern.
Dr. Ross – That would suggest that the consent that’s signed should be more specific and limited.
So it’s clear that we’re not just snooping and that we have no business knowing a lot of things
about our candidates; it’s just none of our business. I can’t imagine that it is impossible to
change a consent to what is actually being asked.
Mr. Spiridon – I can only tell you (that) I’ve asked the question..
Dr. Ross – You’ve asked?
Mr. Spiridon – The attorney general’s office.
Dr. Ross – It’s misleading. It’s a misleading consent.
Mr. Spiridon – It was explained to me that the Fair Credit Reporting Act contains certain
positions about what you have to disclose. Even though you may, quite frankly, for faculty
we’re not checking on their credit rating or anything of that nature.
Dr. Ross – I’m not just concerned about faculty.
Mr. Spiridon – I understand; I’m just using this as an example. The Fair Credit Reporting Act
goes broader than just credit checks. It goes back into employment and because of that, the
reason that’s been provided to me (as to why) the language in the consent in the disclosure form
has to remain (is) because it goes into areas outside of just credit reporting. There’s also, if we
are to reject a candidate, we have to reinform the candidate, we have to notify them of the
reason. It’s not just a “we changed our mind” type of thing.
Dr. Ross – But Chuck, in your listing of what you actually expect to find out about someone, you
didn’t mention credit at all. So why…?
Mr. Spiridon – Not for faculty. I just read off the checks we do for faculty. There are certain
positions at the university (for which) we will be doing credit checks. Generally, those that have
a fiduciary responsibility.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
8
Dr. Whittemore – So Chuck, does this mean that somebody who has a budget for a Center and
therefore is responsible for managing that budget, that they are up for a credit check?
Mr. Spiridon – We haven’t identified those types of things. Basically people in our accounting
area, Vice Presidential positions, people who have significant involvement. When we went
about implementing this policy what we did was, we, quite frankly, took all the position titles at
the university and we pre-identified those areas (for which) we’d be doing background checks,
which of the specific categories, which of the specific tiers. So we pre-identified them so we
weren’t making decisions at the point of a candidate coming forward; so that’s all been done.
We went through, we looked at the job descriptions and we identified those positions where we
thought there was a significant fiduciary responsibility and those are the positions we’ll be doing
credit checks for.
Dr. Aina – At what point in the process would they have to sign that (consent form)? Is it the
beginning of the search or at the end of the search?
Mr. Spiridon – At the end of the search, only for the final candidates.
Dr. Ross – Could you just clarify the connection between a personal credit check and a job?
Mr. Spiridon – Say, a person who is a comptroller of the university. (He or she has) significant
financial problems in (his or her) personal life. That’s generally an indication that (such a
candidate) may have a problem with serving in the role as the comptroller.
Dr. Aina – Do you mean, they are not paying their credit card on time?
Mr. Spiridon – Well, I think it would probably be further than just that (he or she) might be
delinquent by a week in paying a credit card. I think it would be more substantial than that.
Dr. Ross – But that’s very different from a criminal check. A criminal check, I can understand.
I just don’t think it’s any of our business what the personal credit history of a person. (Isn’t the
important) …question (rather) how the people do on the job? Is it not?
Mr. Spiridon – It’s been shown that there’s a high correlation (between) the people who have
problems managing their personal finances, in a significant way… , is that the type of person you
want to hire to manage the university’s finances?
Dr. Lightwood – So, if I understand this correctly, for people who have the financial obligations
,they are the people who need the credit check?
Mr. Spiridon – Yes.
Dr. Lightwood – And for the people who have the credit checks, it’s (with regard to) them that
this language is (necessarily so broad)?
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
9
Mr. Spiridon – No, it’s for everyone. The Fair Credit Reporting Act goes beyond just credit
checks. It’s basically, as it was explained to me, talking about any type of pre-employment
background check.
Dr. Lightwood – It has to be unnecessarily broad?
Mr. Spiridon – That’s how it was explained to me.
Dr. Lightwood – I was wondering if it was possible to really clarify that?
Mr. Spiridon – As I’ve said, we’ve asked the Attorney General’s office, the person who assisted
the universities in developing the consent and disclosure form.
Dr. Wiss – A civil liberties lawyer was consulted about this, which is maybe a slightly different
perspective than the (state) Attorney General. (But) what (the lawyer) recommended… what was
appropriate was to notify a candidate prior to the application, if you ask for information, with
that being verified (for the candidate beforehand). (The lawyer’s concern was) that if we stepped
beyond that line (in our verification procedure) that it might be perceived as an intrusion into
someone’s civil liberties. (And) and what (was of specific) concern… was (a) how does the
applicant correct any errors and also (b) what happens to the information once it is collected?
Mr. Spiridon – I can tell you, once the information is collected, (once) we receive the
background check, it is kept confidential. That’s why there are limited people (who) have access
to it, quite frankly.
Dr. Wiss – What does Sterling do with it?
Mr. Spiridon – After they performed their service, I don’t know that they do anything else with
it.
Dr. Whittemore – The problem here is that that’s not what’s showing up on the public “trackrecord” of these kinds of companies. A number of us are concerned because in the news lately,
there have been several instances when… a company like this, has kept data on its data base, it
has been tapped into by unauthorized sources, and they have shared (that information) and sold it
without permission. I think that as a university, we have a responsibility to be much more
careful than simply a series of probables, (of verbal assurances). It seems that, as a university,
we could be more specific about exactly what it is we’re asking. It occurs to me, for example, as
we reviewed the faculty tier and listed the items, those are the items that any faculty review
committee (looking at) the curriculum vitae of those who apply, in fact look into (as a matter of
course).
Mr. Spiridon – That’s not true. I’ve already spoken with some departments that don’t, quite
frankly.
Dr. Whittemore - Well, but then that is the faculty review committees’ internal affair. In other
words, what I’m concerned about, for perhaps legitimate reasons… (although [according to the
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
10
minutes we have in hand] the Board of Trustees spent (but a very few) minutes in the Trustees
meeting that approved this policy (actually deliberating over a policy which), given the scope of
it, surprises me)… as an institution, we can ask that for (our purposes), we be more specific (with
regard to what we are needing to know).
Mr. Spiridon – We do. When we, (in) Human Resources, get back to a potential candidate, we
tell them what background check we’ll be doing.
Dr. Whittemore – Would it be possible for those who are involved in search committees to be
advised by the Human Resources Office exactly what is going to be asked of the candidate (who)
we recommend to your office?
Mr. Spiridon – I just listed, for example, the background checks that we do for that tier. I can tell
you what the different tiers are.
Dr. Whittemore – I think that would be helpful. But then, secondarily, what happens when a
candidate says, “But I looked at this ‘Consent and Disclosure Form’ and I simply will not sign it.
It’s a violation of my privacy, it’s an intrusion into my life, and regardless of your institutional
preference to sign a standard form from one of these agencies, I will not sign it.” Does that mean
that that candidate is no longer a viable candidate?
Mr. Spiridon – According to the background check policy, yes.
Dr. Whittemore – According to the (CSU) Board’s background check policy?
Mr. Spiridon – Yes.
Pres. Nair – May I ask one question on top? You said earlier, Chuck, that the Attorney General’s
office had ok , (inaudible). The reason I asked that question, if the Consent and Disclosure
Form, for example, for faculty (candidates), were they (in fact) asked for their consent to do the
checks that you’re actually going to do? Do you think the Attorney General’s office would (be
able to clarify this)?
Mr. Spiridon – I didn’t ask that question; if you like I’ll ask that question. I have no problem
asking if the Consent and Disclosure Form can be modified.
Pres. Nair – … Is there some rule that (we) have to use the same consent and disclosure form for
all (candidates for employment)?
Mr. Spiridon – My understanding was (that) in order to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, even though you may not be checking an individual’s credit background, that law provides
for certain types of “legalese” language that has worked its way into the Consent and Disclosure
Form and that’s why it’s there as it is now. As I said, I would be happy to ask whether the
Consent and Disclosure Form can be modified. I assume you’re talking about when (the
verification is) not a credit check.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
11
Pres. Nair – What I’m talking about is, if I’m an applicant, if you’re really going to check my
credentials, my residence, whatever, you should ask me to sign a consent form to check those
and no others. That’s my question.
Mr. Spiridon – You’re asking a legal question and I don’t know the answer, but I said I’d ask.
Dr. Ross – I think that it’s important for us (just as we have this question about the IRB) to
remember that when you sign that form, (the candidate knows) whether or not, at the moment the
person in your position (as Director of Human Resources) is looking for a particular set of
criteria to be verified, the (candidate) has in fact (not) given permission for something
outrageous. Something that is a violation of privacy and really is contrary to everything that this
University stands for about human rights and civil liberties. I, myself, would find it repugnant to
sign such a form and to ask a potential colleague (to do so as well). (Replacing me in the
position I will soon leave), some very, I hope, ethical person will come in and, I hate to say what
that (Consent and Disclosure Form) says about us to such a future colleague.
I would like to suggest that we raise formal objection to two aspects of this. One, that we make a
formal objection to the Board of Trustees, (and) that we limit any checks to verification of
information that has been asked for (from the candidate). So (what we are asking for) is simply
(in order) to show that the (candidate) was indeed telling the truth. (Just) so that the information
is clear and (the Consent and Disclosure Form) says, “I give permission to verify the information
(for) which you always sign (an agreement as a potential employee).
Mr. Spiridon – None of the information we’re asking for is on the employment verification form.
We’re not verifying something outside….
Dr. Ross – Exactly. But what I’m saying is, I think that we should, (for) any position of hiring in
this university, ask for verification of what has been (advertised as part of those credentials
required for any position). And in addition, I think we should specifically say that to people.
And the Consent and Disclosure Form should be limited to that.
I believe that the Board of Trustees should hear from us. I’m not talking about the Attorney
General; I mean the Board of Trustees. I think it’s a violation of privacy and to say, “Well, sure
it says (Sterling) can call your neighbors. But they’re not really going to!” Once you’ve signed
that paper, if you (yourself) are not in that position (as Dean of Human Resources), Chuck,
someone else (holding that office) could say, “Well, you know, I’m a little nervous about this
guy; let’s call the neighbors.”
This happens all over the place, (but)… I would hope (that at the university)) we would be
different. But (no mistake about it), once you’ve signed (the Consent and Disclosure Form),
you’ve signed it.
So we can call it “legalese.” But it is a legal consent and it’s a legal consent for a repugnant
process. It’s really shameful. (This)… is just a response to the scare tactics that are being used
all over the country and that make people feel afraid of working in (certain) environments.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
12
I wonder if, I don’t know whether anyone else in the Senate would be willing to join me in some
kind of expression to the Board, but I would be very happy to move that that message be sent to
the Board and that we ask for a very specific understanding about our hiring.
Dr. Aina – I just have a technical question. Is there a liability issue? Say, for an example,
somebody was checked. (Those consulted) said something was wrong with (a candidate who
was subsequently dropped from eligibility, when in fact) nothing was wrong with him. And then
the (prospective hire) found out that (someone’s counsel that) something was wrong with him
(was in fact used as a grounds for his being dropped). … Can they sue (the university)?
Mr. Spiridon – Part of the process is, if we were to receive some information that would deny the
person’s employment, we would inform the potential candidate of the information, (and) give
them the opportunity to either explain or correct that information. So there’s a “check and
balance.” There is, however, you bring up a good point, there is a liability issue. There’s a
liability issue all the time when people (don’t) get hired and they find out that there was
something in their background… that prevented them from being hired and then some wrongful
action occurs.
Pres. Nair – …If I remember the document correctly, I think it gives five days for the person to
reply after they are contacted. You know, the person applies, you do a background check, they
find out that you’re an ax murderer. So your office (of Human Resources) sends a letter to this
guy saying, “You know, we found this out about you and there’s a problem with the job.” From
the time you mailed that letter, this candidate has five days to get back to you to say whether or
not that’s true. If the candidate is from the West Coast, it takes two days to reach them, two days
to get back.
Mr. Spiridon – We have sent certified letters
Pres. Nair – … But does this give adequate time for anybody to respond? That’s a real concern.
Dr. Whittemore – And I would add to that, that anybody (who’s) applying from overseas, that’s
an absolutely impossible (time frame) to meet.
Mr. Spiridon – I think the key is that you have to do it certified, legitimately start the clock at
five days. I’m not telling you that we would limit it to five days, but that clock would only start
when the person signs the receipt for the letter.
Pres. Nair – So the day I sign it, the clock starts then, and you would have to hear from me in
five days? I mean, that’s what it says.
Mr. Spiridon – I understand what you’re saying. To the limit of that, yes. A person comes back
and writes a simple letter (saying), “I dispute; I’m gathering information.” (In such a
circumstance) we would be hard pressed (as a) university, quite frankly, to say that at that point,
“No, you only have five days! We’re just going to rule you out.” You’d have to provide them
with a reasonable period to respond.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
13
Dr. Flanagan – Two things: (a) I think it is important what you sign, and (b) (regarding) the
Consent and Disclosure Form, we shouldn’t be asking people to sign something (as broadly
stated. Rather, we should only expect that a candidate) sign (a consent for) what we’re actually
going to do. I mean I’m not a lawyer, (but) I just think that is something, that as an employer,
ethically, we should do. I want to encourage Phyllis to make her motion.
Pres. Nair – I did check the language (on the Consent and Disclosure Form).
Dr. Wiss – I just want to make a clarification. I’m sure Chuck has just been enforcing the
Board’s policy, not necessarily endorsing it.
But I would also agree with Phyllis. I think we should send a careful reply to the Board (telling
them) how we feel about it. Maybe a few folks could get together and write that. And I think
that we’ve heard some good suggestions about how to propose to modify the policy here on our
campus in order to do what the Board wants: … to maintain a high reputation, the highest
integrity. And (the Board) also says it’s willing to approve amendments to the policy as
necessary from time to time. These may be policies that now, as we’re enacting them, are
necessary. (But) I would like to propose some amendments to monitor the value that (this new
policy is) providing to the university.
I think Jodi Rell is probably about to cut the higher education budget and I don’t know if this
(newly adopted policy) is the best allocation of our resources. But then, I also think we need
to… monitor the implementation of this. Because obviously, there are rumors flying about,
whether it’s useful on campus or not. I’d just like to see some kind of system where we get some
feedback about (whether this) is providing a service to the Board that they would like to have.
We need to assess it. I’m all in favor of assessment.
Pres. Nair – One other thing Chuck. The list you gave us for the faculty, you left out the sexual
offender. Is that wrong?
Mr. Spiridon – No, it’s part of the criminal investigation.
Pres. Nair – Why is that a criminal investigation. On what basis would a person be denied?
Mr. Spiridon – There has to be a nexus (inaudible)…. (As of about) fifteen years ago, there’s
(been) a general premise that those (crimes committed) seven years or longer (before application
for employment) are disqualified (for consideration), as a general practice. The first question
you’d have to ask yourself is, when was the crime committed? What was the crime? What is the
(potential)relationship (between) the crime and the employment?
Pres Nair – See, I’m trying to understand the association between the job and the crime. How do
you establish that connection. That’s what I don’t understand.
Dr. Whittemore – … Additionally the issue is, if you have been convicted of a crime and you’ve
“done your time,” does that mean you still are open for some questioning (by the prospective
employer)? We have, in the Chronicle of Higher Education six months ago, the case of a faculty
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
14
member who, in fact, had “done his time.” And somebody dug up his crime and, lo’ and behold,
he was obliged to quit (his) tenured professorship because supposedly, by somebody’s judgment
,he committed a crime which was heinous enough for him not to be in his position as a faculty
member with young people.
I want to affirm what Katie said, that we understand that you are in the position of having to
speak for this policy. So this is not in any way some sort of thing about you. (Rather), it’s our
trying to get from you (the information we need) and also to communicate some of our concerns.
It seems to me we’re entering a nexus here where somebody, perhaps nameless, determines,
“Well, that crime, that’s really not relevant to this; (but this crime), or that one is.” On what
basis? Given the fact that a faculty review committee has reviewed the person’s credentials, has
read his or her publications, has determined the candidate is “top flight” for the job, and all of a
sudden, the committee’s determination is being second-guessed, (is this appropriate)? Again, it
seems to me we’re entering into the nexus of peer review, which is now becoming something
that can be “second guessed” on the basis (of) whether a crime did or did not fit into someone’s
definitions of acceptable or unacceptable.
Mr. Spiridon – I don’t see this as being peer review in the Academic credential sense of it.
Dr. Whittemore – But when a hiring committee reviews peers and recommends hires, that’s the
beginning of the peer review process.
Dr. Schlicht – Rob, what if that information was brought to the faculty hiring committee? Let’s
say that you guys had the power to do that background check and you found out that this person
had committed this heinous crime. There would probably be some impact outside of how well
their journal articles (were received) and books (considered) and (classes) taught. I don’t know
what that would be?
Dr. Wiss – I really have to say I think we should let the justice system handle how people are
punished for their crimes. It’s not the job of a social institution, one of higher education.
I just have to comment on this excerpt from the minutes of the Board of Trustees. It says,
“Eastern has begun this practice. Many of the state agencies are conducting this type of
investigation.” The state troopers are a state agency, as is the Department of Corrections. If they
were to do criminal background checks, they are part of the criminal justice system; that might
actually be appropriate. But as we are not, I think we should let the Department of Justice
determine when people have done their crimes and when they’re eligible for parole and when we
let them out. And when they’re out, they’re out.
Dr. Ross – I’d like to make a motion, may I? It would sort of be a way of putting on the table
what the issue is.
Pres. Nair – Let’s (first) finish with Mr. Spiridon’s presentation.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
15
Dr. Ross – With regard to what Jeff and Katy were saying, what’s important is, if it was
important to ask a bit of information to get a job (change of tape)… background or mental
illness. I mean some people are protected by the Disabilities Act. We know for years, people
weren’t free to say anything about a whole bunch of things that they have (experienced) because
they wouldn’t get a job. We don’t want to (return to such an atmosphere).
Pres. Nair – I’m still troubled by this idea of establishing a connection with a job and the crime.
How does one do that?
Dr. Ross – What about a history of Plagiarism? Defamation?
Dr. Schlicht – Vijay, your question sets up the premise that this job exists outside of any social
context. The fact is that we are in a social environment, and it’s not like we’re just doing a job
and nothing else that we do matters anywhere.
Pres. Nair – Chuck said earlier that there has to be a relationship between a job and the alleged
crime or the real crime. I just want to know how do you establish that relationship.
Dr. Echevarria – … I think you can make a distinction (as to) whether the crime is relative to the
position. If prospectives have served their time and they’re not in the public (inaudible), and (in
the case of a candidate in the Art Department) they have good art ability and they have a great
reputation, you know, if somebody is a pedophile and will be coming in contact with children….
Pres. Nair – That is what my problem is. You’re the Chairman of the Art Department; you have
a search committee but you (as Chair) have nothing to say about this. The Dean of Human
Resources, whether it’s Chuck or somebody else is irrelevant, he’s going to make that decision.
And that’s where I have the problem.
Dr. Echevarria – He’s going to make the decision, but I’m sure he’s going to ask for our
recommendations.
Mr. Spiridon – Actually, (the process as it is currently constituted is) not going to allow (the
Dean of Human Resources) to go back to the search committee. I think there are problems.
Quite frankly, where there is a clear nexus (and this obviously is a continuum), but there are
clearly crimes…. If someone is convicted of rape and so forth and you put them on a college
campus with young adults, I think there’s a clear nexus there. I think there’s a clear nexus if
someone attacked their former supervisor. So, I think there are situations when there is a crime
and it’s clear.
I’m not going to stand here and kid anybody and say that all of the situations are clear cut, one
way or the other. There will inevitably be things in the gray area and that’s when the discussion
will have to occur. There’s many aspects. Is the committee asking candidates whether they’ve
committed a crime and what is it? I hope not. There may be the need to ask, whether its the
committee, the dean, the department chair, certain aspects of the job, to make a determination of
whether there’s a nexus or not. But in terms of the confidentiality aspect, it’s not going to be
something that we’re going to say, “Candidate X has done the following.” (Were this to happen,
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
16
it) opens the university up to tremendous liability in terms of protecting that candidates’
confidentiality. The waiver doesn’t allow the university to go out and broadcast what his
background is. You’re making it much broader. In terms of controlling confidentiality, it is
much more difficult.
Dr. Aina – So, what you’re saying is, if we, the committee, select say, five candidates, and they
go to disability and finally they go to you, we don’t know, if we don’t see them, it means they
haven’t passed the test, if they don’t come to join us later on, we know they haven’t passed the
test. That’s the way we would know?
Mr. Spiridon – No, I mean it’s not going to be zero communication. Obviously, the committee
will be told that the candidate…. It’s not going be hard to figure out. Quite frankly, “Didn’t
pass the background check.” I mean, we’re not going to get into the specifics of what happened,
(but) the (search) committee is not going to be left totally with no feedback whatsoever.
Dr. Whittemore – Just looking at the Application for Employment, just to show another problem
I see in this. It turns out there’s a question, “Have you been convicted of an offense against
criminal or military law or are there criminal charges currently pending against you?” You can
check “no” if, in the previous years, your conviction, your criminal charge or your arrest has
been expunged. And you can actually say, “I have not committed a crime. ” That is considered
legal. So now (hypothetically) we have somebody who has committed one of these crimes,
(who) is supposedly in one of these “nexes” connecting previous criminal behavior to potential
employment but who, in his or her statements on the form, is not self-identifying. (And this is
not in any way illegal.)
Mr. Spiridon – If it was expunged, it wouldn’t show up in the background check.
Dr. Whittemore – It wouldn’t show up in any check of official records. But it certainly would
show up if you call somebody who had known the candidate, either faculty, or in the
neighborhood, or as a neighbor.
Mr. Spiridon – In a Verification of Employment, we’re asking people to tell us whether we had
criminal, we’re not, we’re going to the local, state and federal authorities to check the criminal
(record). We’re not checking that at a previous institution…, that’s not where that particular
check occurs.
Dr. Whittemore – I think you’re misunderstanding my question. If you determine that somebody
has said they have not committed a crime (and they are doing that legally), because in fact the
record, the conviction, (or) the arrest… has been expunged from the records, … that has nothing
to do with whether, in fact, they committed a criminal act. Which by the standards you’re
talking about, … that doesn’t mean that they haven’t done (the crime). If our concern is that, as
you say, there’s some correlation between certain kinds of (criminal) activity and subsequent
problems at the job, essentially then, legally, your concern (about “nexes” of correlation, is
potentially) irrelevant.
Mr. Spiridon – You’re saying that the university acts on bad information.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
17
Dr. Whittemore – No, it could be good information.
Mr. Spiridon – What’s good about it, if it was expunged?
Dr. Whittemore – Because (the public record no longer) shows that they did something, for
which they have (at one time) been convicted (and)… done time.
Mr. Spiridon – But (that record) has been expunged?
Dr. Whittemore – Yes.
Mr. Spiridon – Ok.
Dr. Whittemore – But your argument was that there are certain correlations.
Mr. Spiridon – No, no, please don’t misconstrue my argument. My argument wasn’t to
(inaudible) all the information. What you’re suggesting here is that the University somehow has
learned, I don’t know how that would happen, quite frankly, since they’re checking databases
(that are) supposed to expunge, which shouldn’t show up, ok? (But that Sterling) somehow finds
out about incorrect information, knows it’s incorrect, and (still) relies upon it. I mean, that’s a
far-fetched premise.
Dr. Whittemore – Why is it far fetched?
Mr. Spiridon – Why is it far fetched? You’re asking for a series of events to occur, you’re
asking for somehow Sterling has (a) misapplied the background check, (and (b) went outside of
what they stated they’re supposed to do.
Dr. Whittemore – But it’s not outside, Chuck.
Mr. Spiridon – It is outside
Dr. Whittemore – No, it isn’t. On the agreement that (the candidate) signed, it said that
(Sterling) could go on general reputation searches, they can go (on the basis of) personal
characteristics that have been determined by people that either you have known or have not
known but have (only) heard about you. That’s in the agreement. Now, if you have a
conviction, even if it’s expunged by the official record, if Sterling Services determines that a
neighbor says, “Oh, yes, he did rape someone….”
Mr. Spiridon – It’s not going to show up in the criminal check of it.
Dr. Whittemore – No, exactly not. But it is going to show up in the neighbors’ recollection of
the (candidate) going to court and of being convicted and then (that recollection) becomes (part
of) Sterling’s database.
Mr. Spiridon – I disagree that that is going to happen.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
18
Dr. Aina – (Chuck), you know what’s going on. But somebody else will come into your position
(in the future), who doesn’t know any of us. (And he or she) is going to come by a new idea and
is going to go by the letter of what we’re seeing here. You’re saying (that) because you are
aware of it, (a future Dean of Human Resources) is not going to do that. But (were) somebody
else (to) come and look at that paper and follow it to the letter…. So that’s going to be different,
that’s going be a new Dean who does not know Joseph anymore.
Mr. Spiridon – First of all, there aren’t retroactive background checks; there isn’t anything of
that nature.
Dr. Aina – It doesn’t have to be retroactive. There is somebody that has just come ,
(inaudible)….
Dr. Schlicht – I think we’ve recognized that there are some, we all as a body have some concerns
about the Consent and Verification Form. I think it would be appropriate to send those to the
Board. But … Chuck is just representing the official position. So I don’t know how much more
putting him on the stand is going….
Dr. Ross – Chuck is telling us in a very reassuring way that that kind of discretion, which is
inherent in this form, will not be exercised. (But) what Joseph is saying is, that’s fine, that one
person can say that. But the next person….
Dr. Schlicht – But I think the way to directly approach this is to go to the Board of Trustees and
say we don’t think this consent is correct. I think that’s really the approach.
Pres. Nair – I was advised and I don’t have this information with me, that before the Board acted
on this policy….
Dr. Wiss – … was developed and approved by the System Office and the four universities.
Pres. Nair – Who at this university was involved?
Mr. Spiridon – It was shared with the PAC – the President’s Advisory Council, and it was in a
draft form and then it was ultimately endorsed by the Council….
Pres. Nair – (And to the Board, what is the representation)that employee relations consists of?
Mr. Spiridon – I am the representative for Western; it’s the Chief Personnel Officer from each of
the universities.
Pres. Nair – So, what happened, I’m just trying to understand, before the Board approved this,
the Chief Personnel Officers for the four campuses… approved this?
Mr. Spiridon – We weren’t asked to review them, but to endorse it. In other words….
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
19
Pres. Nair – What puzzles me is that I would like to think that if the Chief Personnel officer of
(each of) the four universities had wanted to, they could have advised )their respective) Senate,
for example, that this was in the making. And (could have asked that Senate), if you have any
comments…. before it was forwarded. But for some reason, this didn’t happen. (To us, as a
Senate) this came out of the blue.
Mr. Spiridon – It wasn’t done in secret. It was shared with the PAC; we explained what was
going forward. The normal communication is the PAC….
Pres. Nair – Then I find your comment there (somewhat troubling) because we didn’t know this
was happening before it went before the Board of Trustees…. The Chief Personnel Officers
from the four campuses knew about it, and had (the opportunity to communicate to their
respective campuses). What puzzles me is that none of us knew about it. And why is that? Why
should we not have known about it so that we could have expressed our concerns before the
Board actually acted on it?
Mr. Spiridon – It’s the Board of Trustees, if the communication vehicles are in place, (all four
universities’ community members) should have had agendas in advance. And then the agenda
(would have served as a notice to) the public for bringing comment, including anybody from this
community.
Pres. Nair – No, I’m talking about what the BOT does. I’m talking about the Chief Personnel
Office people. Before it reached the BOT for action. I know what happens at the Board. The
Chief Personnel Officer had an opportunity to discuss this (beforehand with their constituents).
Now why is it that we could not have known that this was in the making so that we could have
expressed these concerns before it actually reached the BOT?
Mr. Spiridon – As I said it was shared in the typical communication vehicle, the PAC approved
this, and so forth. If it was shared or wasn’t shared at the department, I can’t speak for that.
Pres. Nair – it still troubles me that at least the Department Chairs should have known about it,
because as today, a lot of people have comments to make and they could have taken them into
consideration before the policy was approved by the BOT. I’m disappointed that that didn’t
happen.
Dr. Munz – It occurs to me that if the Chairs had been informed, (since) I am the Chair, I would
have been aware of this.
Dr. Ross – I want to make a motion that would be then forwarded to the Board of Trustees.
Insofar as the CSU Board of Trustees has authorized the Chancellor to approve amendments to
the Pre-employment Background Verification Policy, the WCSU Senate proposes to limit the
scope of any employment background check to verification of information required for a specific
position and to require consent and disclosure only for what will be checked.
Pres. Nair – Dr. Ganchev seconded the motion. Call for discussion.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
20
Dr. Schlicht – I want to clarify it a little more. The earlier discussion was that we want to check
only the information that’s on the employment application. So maybe if we said the verification
will only be that information and credentials. Is that good?
Pres. Nair – Before you make an amendment, let me just make one point. I have sat on a lot of
search committees and I have worked on a lot of job advertisements, as many of you have also,
as directed by the Human Resources office. And it has always been the case that what you
require in the job advertisement is what is checked. Ok, you said the person has to have a
terminal degree, you say the person has to have so many years of experience; that is what is
checked. I have no idea where this employment application thing comes in. I don’t get it. I
have never heard of a candidate being required to fill out an employment application.
Dr. Ross – Let me just say, I am not speaking only of faculty. There are many people here who
have to fill out an application for employment and I don’t want to limit (our discussion) by
putting that in.
Pres. Nair – I don’t either; I’m not suggesting you do. I’m just saying that to hang this on the
employment application form may be an error because, as Dr. Ross just pointed out, you know
some people have to do it, others don’t. That’s what I’m saying.
Dr. Ross – Well, I’m going to add three words because I think it would be ok. To, “verification
of information required from the applicant for a particular position.” Is that ok? So, to repeat:
Insofar as the CSU Board of Trustees has authorized the Chancellor to approve
amendments to the Pre-employment Background Verification Policy, the WCSU Senate
proposes to limit the scope of any employment background check to verification of
information required from an applicant for a specific position and to require consent and
disclosure only for what will be checked.
Pres. Nair – If you’re saying (information) was required of the applicant, who requires it?
Dr. Ross – Depending on the job, (for example) in a faculty position, it’s really in the job
description, (in the advertisement for the position). People ask for a resume, they ask for a
particular terminal degree, they ask for a particular number of years’ experience, they ask for
references, they ask for any number of things. But, I think there are also forms that you fill out.
Pres. Nair – What I’m saying is none of that, what I’m saying, Dr. Ross, is that you put out a
particular announcement.
Dr. Ross – So it would be “to limit the scope of any employment background check to
verification of information required from the applicant as specified in the job description for a
specific position.”
Pres. Nair – Ok, that’s what I was saying.
Dr. Ross – That’s very good
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
21
Dr. Hawkes – I’m puzzled. I understand some of your concerns, certainly. But I’m puzzled as to
how this might… at the university, particularly in recruiting for senior positions. It has never
been unusual, for a senior position for the university for instance, to send a delegation to the
(candidate’s) former campus and talk to (inaudible) about the reputation of the person, the
background. I know this was done when I was hired.
Dr. Ross – But you didn’t sign this, it was just an understanding.
Dr. Hawkes – No, but I knew they were going to do this and I don’t know what questions they
asked.
Dr. Ross – That’s really a form of reference check.
Dr. Hawkes – I suppose so, but I’m wondering whether that resolution is applying to all
positions. Because there are some senior positions, for instance, the Vice President for Financial
Affairs, that you want to be able to check up on.
Pres. Nair – I think Dr. Hawkes makes a good point. Let me just make a suggestion. Would you
consider saying, “except for management positions?”
Dr. Ross – I think it’s important for the applicant to be asked for whatever information is
relevant, and then that can be checked. It may be a little bit more specific in the job description.
The job description may require ability to establish rapport in the former employment or
whatever it is, but it ought to be spelled out. I think that that’s the way one protects people’s
rights and privacy and I think that if there’s an understanding that part of your application
process is a kind of general reference from the campus from the which you come, that should be
specified.
Pres. Nair – But the reason I asked you the question is that I happen to know, since the system
has hired a new president, they check everything. So, it maybe the case, as Dr. Hawkes said, that
with senior management positions, that maybe that is what the Board wants to do. I don’t care
what the resolution says, but that’s the reason.
Dr. Ross – You know ,when you make a job description, and you include character, that’s fine.
Mr. Marcone – … Being a State agency, a lot of our job descriptions are brought down from
state levels. We don’t have the flexibility, many times, to change job descriptions or add
language. So a lot of comments, those that you’re talking, about character references and
making sure that somebody is of good character, we don’t have the flexibility to put that into an
official state job description.
Dr. Ross – For the president of the university?
Mr. Marcone – For a custodian.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
22
Dr. Ross – I don’t think it’s appropriate.
Mr. Marcone – But if you’re lying on the job description….
Dr. Ross – …The job description should say what we need to know. Once that has been satisfied
by the applicant, if the applicant says you have a right to check to see if I was being honest in my
application for this position in what I stated and the materials I gave, I think that’s perfectly fine.
Mr. Marcone – But if the job description requires three years experience … for one of our auto
mechanics, it doesn’t say anything about not being a registered sex offender. I think obviously it
would be a problem if we had somebody who is a registered sex offender working on campus
with folks who are minors and working on cars, because we have student employees who drive
state cars.
Dr. Ross – We may not agree on that; I would take a difference with that. But I can see that
there’s stuff we will not get. I believe there will always be stuff we will not get. … The
majority of people who are applying to work at this university come in good faith and if we want
to attract people who believe in human rights and human dignity, we should not insult them like
this. This is an expression that would make many of us embarrassed to be part of that process. I
think we want to feel pride in how we present our university. To ask for what is appropriate for
us to know; if anything, there should be less gossip on this campus.
Mr. Spiridon – The only thing I’m commenting on is the language in your motion.
Dr. Ross – Which says?
Mr. Spiridon – Which refers to a job description.
Dr. Ross – I’m just saying that … the job description should say what we need to know. That’s
all I’m saying.
Dr. Campbell - When we do a search, when we hire someone at the university, by convention,
traditionally, what types of checks do you do? In other words, are we allowed to pick up the
phone and talk to somebody about how they performed in their job?
Dr. Ross – We have references that we’re allowed to check.
Dr. Campbell – So, we check the references… to find out the aspects. (Suppose) there’s a line
that says, “convicted pedophile.” Are we allowed, traditionally, to do anything about that or is
that information not allowed to be in our decision process?
Pres. Nair – This policy talks about the out-sourcing of the background check. This policy is not
talking about what the search committee does. This has been out-sourced. They are the ones
who do the background checks, not the search committee; that’s part of the problem.
Dr. Campbell – That’s what I was asking.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
23
Dr. Ross – I think if you call a reference and the reference discloses something, and the reference
was given by the applicant, you’re in perfectly good territory and that’s the point. The
applicant’s responsibility is to give you references that are accurate.
Pres. Nair – Any further discussion on the motion?
Dr. Wiss – Do you want to add anything about the monitoring of the value of the implementation
of this policy?
Dr. Ross – Yes, monitoring the value. I didn’t know if that should be separate or not. I mean, if
you think we could, I think that the first thing is to get a response to this (motion as it now
stands).
Dr. Wiss – We can add that later.
Pres. Nair – Well, if the motion is passed by the Senate, then I will have to communicate that text
of the motion to the Board of Trustees. Let me make it very clear. Are you asking me, as the
Senate President, to communicate to the Board of Trustees or to the Chancellor? Because
nobody… let’s you… communicate this kind of thing to the Chancellor. I can send it to the
Chairman of the Board of Trustees. I just want to be clear about what I’m supposed to do with
this.
Dr. Ross – I would think Dr. Schmotter would know.
Dr. Aina – … Can we go directly to the Chancellor or to the Board without going through the
President of the university?
Pres. Nair – If the senate asks me to communicate something to the Chancellor, I will.
Dr. Ross – I think it should be sent to the Chancellor, with a copy to each member of the Board.
Because the Chancellor is the one who is authorized to approve amendments. I think it makes
sense, but they should be informed in the matter in which we were not.
Pres. Nair – I will need the text so that I can put it in the minutes. Is there any further discussion
on the motion? Hearing no further discussion… can you read it one more time?
Dr. Ross – “Insofar as the CSU board of trustees has authorized the Chancellor to approve
amendments to the Pre-employment Background Verification Policy, the WCSU Senate
proposes to limit the scope of any employment background check to verification of information
required from an applicant as specified in the job description for a specific position, and to
require consent and disclosure only for what will be checked.”
The motion passed with two opposed.
C.
Deadline for mid-term grade entry in Banner – Ad Hoc Committee Report
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
24
Pres. Nair – At the April meeting, we established an Ad-Hoc Committee consisting of Dr.
Schlicht, Dr. Ganchev, Dr. Vaden-Goad, Ms. Duffy and Dr. Wilcox. Is there a report?
Dr. Schlicht – While no resolution is as of yet available from the Committee, two core ideas have
shaped the Committee’s discussion: (a) the practicality of the eight week (mid-term) time-frame
as feasible for professors and (b) the usefulness of an eight week mid-term grade submission for
students. Given that the mid-term report is intended to alert students if they’re doing poorly so
that they can then change course and do better, the Committee has discussed what else can be
done to help students out. While this was not the intent of Dr. Schlicht’s own original motion
that created the Ad Hoc Committee, people in the committee wanted to keep talking about these
issues.
If there are a number of people in the Senate who are interested in issues related to how we could
do things differently to help reduced attrition for students, you may want to be part of these
discussions…. That’s what this is ultimately going to become, not simply why can’t we move
from eight weeks to nine weeks, or ten weeks, or whatever.
If you’re interested in being part of this discussion, you should let me know. You can email me;
I’ll add you to the list of people who are going to continue talking about this.
As it is now we’re not quite sure whether we can move eight weeks for a couple of reasons.
Pres. Nair – … Would it help if we set up an ERES page so that people can just go and leave
their comments on the discussion?
Dr. Schlicht – I can make this one comment. According to the Registrar, most professors are
submitting mid-term grades in a timely matter, so this may… not affect a lot of people. Are
there any people here (who) feel that they’re under stress by the eight-week deadline mark? One
out of the group, but everybody else, you’re not having any problem with that? Ok, then I don’t
know if there’s a big discussion to be had, actually.
Dr. Aina – I sent this question to my department, if they had a problem with it and nobody
replied, so I guess they’re not having a problem with it.
Pres. Nair – Is that something for September?
Dr. Schlicht – Yes.
Dr. Munz – This year’s weather may have created an unusual situation, with early snow days
impinging on the time usually available for student evaluations within the first eight weeks.
D.
Hybrid vs. online courses – from the Committee on Distance Education
Pres. Nair – From Mr. Gladstone, the Chair of the Committee on Distance Education. The
committee is trying to deal with this issue but it really does need some help from all of us.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
25
Dr. Whittemore – I took this to my department and they had some questions. Two or three
members of my department wondered if what was driving this was some sort of fiscal
consideration. Is it possible, for example, that if we go for the minimum blending, that a change
moves money to Western away from the Central Office? Or is there some fiscal sort of subtext
here that some of us should be thinking about?
Mr. Gladstone – We’ve been asking this general question from the beginning and would ask that
the Administration speak to this issue. It is the understanding of some on the Committee that
there is a financial consideration… if the minimum number of meetings is not accepted, or not
provided for, that the monies for tuition for these courses don’t make it to Western. So there is
an indication for us and for faculty who want to teach (a particular course) 100% on line, or, let’s
say, one class meeting in the beginning of the year. What happens to the possibility of offering
those classes?
Dr. Wiss – Can you tell us specifically what you’re looking for from us?
Mr. Gladstone – That is why I’m asking, we were asked generally to make a recommendation
about this face-to-face meeting policy. And perhaps I could ask Dr. Buccini to comment… what
the implications are currently and what the implications are for the future for faculty offering
courses that they feel don’t need to meet at least 20% of the time, face-to-face with their
students.
Dr. Buccini – Do you have an hour and a half? There are a host of issues that need to be dealt
with.
a) This came about because we found that there were (on-line) courses offered, listed as
regular courses, but that were meeting only once. … We should identify for students…
what they’re really getting into. Are they expected to take almost all of (a course) on line,
or not; so that’s one issue.
b) The second issue does have a fiscal impact. If a course is entirely on-line, it’s supposed
to go through Online CSU. When it goes through CSU Online, we have to pay
approximately $135.00 per credit back to the System office. Now, if you think about your
courses, $250.00 a credit (or whatever) and you’re paying $135.00 back, in many of the
courses you begin to lose money. So we’re actually taking money away from the
university that could be going to other programs, to support the online course. 90% of all
our online courses are taken by Westconn students, so it’s not like we’re getting students
from all over that are supporting this. … The question becomes, to what extent do you
provide the convenience for the students who are taking money from other programs?
c) If a course is called “hybrid,” what’s the definition? … At some other schools, generally
it was about 20% “on ground.” While (a precise) percent is not the issue, the issue is if it’s
a hybrid course, what should the expectation be for “on ground?” How should we define
the courses? Some of our courses are all on-ground except for a little bit on-line. Others
are 50/50. … Right now, the System Office is saying that if a course is entirely on-line, it
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
26
must go through CSU Online. If that’s their stance…, we would tell all the faculty to make
sure to teach one course meeting on the ground, so that we keep the money on the campus.
I posed that question and I was told no, that would be considered on-line and it goes
through. So we’re getting two different answers right now. We felt that 20% would be a
very safe bet; it doesn’t have to be 20%.
d) To what extent do faculty members teach all of their courses on-line and to what extent
is that a departmental issue vs. an individual faculty issue? Because we do have some
faculty who like to teach all their courses on-line. Given it’s all our own students and
they’re taking most of their (other) courses on- ground, what impact does that have on a
particular program or segment of a program in a department. What are the mechanisms
that should be in place to get departmental approval for that?
There is a whole host of (other) issues. What I’m hoping is that next year, the Distance
Education Committee really sits down and delineates all of the issues and comes up with
recommendations across all the issues.
There are many, it’s not as simple as, is it 20 %, or is it 10%, is it 30? We used 20% because it
was a safe bet to keep us going without incurring the System Office kind of reaching in and
telling us. “Oh, by the way, you owe us all this money.” This has been an on-going battle with
the System Office. The System Office doesn’t have a clear indication or we’d know exactly
what to do. My question was, so if (a course) meets once, they meet the first time, is that a
(CSU) Online course? And the original response was “yes.” What about two times? Well,
maybe, it depends; it’s what you’re doing. So that it wasn’t as clearly delineated.
I would not like to see the System Office dictate all of the policies to us. I would like our
Distance Ed Committee to come up with all of the issues, address those issues, and come up with
some recommendations that we can then give back to the System Office and say, “The faculty at
Western has indicated here’s how they would like to teach.”
Pres. Nair – May I just ask how many (is) 20% for a regular course? A semester-long course,
what are they talking about, four or five meetings?
Dr. Buccini – If it meets once a week over 15 weeks, it would be three course meetings. It
would generally be the first, the last; this is the way it’s usually done. Sometimes the first and
the second and then….
Pres. Nair – I think you may have already answered this, but I looked at some of the e-mail
traffic on this thing. I think that the pressing issue is the 20%, that number, because of people
asking the question, why not 10%? What difference does it make? I guess we don’t have an
answer to that.
Dr. Buccini – No, and that’s why I’m saying, I think this has to be studied by the Distance Ed.
Committee. I would rather the Distance Ed. Committee come back with a recommendation.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
27
Pres. Nair – But I think the problem, Russ can correct me, the problem the committee has is that
if, for example, the Committee comes back and says we recommend 10%, what happens?
Dr. Buccini – Well, what we would do is that would be two class (meetings). You can’t have
one and half. It would be two. In that particular case, we would say fine, let’s do the two and
maintain that that is our definition of a hybrid course. Anything that has that or more at which
point, I think we have a safe standard in dealing with this.
Dr. Ross – Is there any expectation of an educational justification for the structure of the course?
I mean, I can see what our concern seems to be is that we’re losing money this way.
Dr. Buccini – Our concern is, we don’t want to.
Dr. Ross – Understood, and that’s a policy we’ve been uncomfortable with since it’s inception,
correct?
Dr. Buccini – Correct. But that’s the tip of the iceberg. There is a whole bunch of other issues.
Like I mentioned, what’s the role of the department? Shouldn’t (its members) have a
determination as to how many, what part of a curriculum actually would be on-line?
Dr. Ross – Because from my point of view… what we’re doing is saying, “How many
(meetings) do I have to do (on the ground) to keep (the course) “here”? But there isn’t a
discussion over why are we doing (CSU) On- line in the first place. And if we’re doing On-line,
what’s the value or the impact of having an on-ground class meeting? It’s an unfortunate
situation because what we’re really uncomfortable with is the policy about funding. If we were
comfortable about the policy about funding, then we might decide we want some on-ground
meetings anyway, given our educational intent.
Dr. Buccini – That’s correct; there are a whole host of educational issues that we’ve never
addressed as a faculty.
Dr. Joel – I was on the Distance Ed Committee this year. One thing that I kept seeing on the
issue of the learning was the issue of our System Office losing money during the regular term. I
believe during intersession and summer that’s not the case because the pricing structure is
different. What that does is, whether at 15% or 20%, what happens is you’re now locking
faculty into a certain design and limiting the types of hybrid courses (that can be offered).
(Offerings shouldn’t) be hindered by such things as, “Well, you have to have it so much this way
because if you only have this much, we’re going to lose money.” So you can’t do one class on
site and the rest on-line because that’s a (CSU) On-line class, that’s not a hybrid class. … It
needs to be really clear what does the System Office provide to the universities… that’s worth
the fee that we’re actually paying them.
Because we have web CT here. We can offer a one class, on-site, the rest online locally… our
own charges, our own structure. Why does it have to go to the System Office? Why does that
have to be centralized? Is (the Central Office) proposing a fifth university?
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
28
One thing I had heard of is only full programs should go through CSU Online. But there’s lots
of people who take just specific courses to go online, because they’re appropriate to go online.
But in order to go (for) that kind of experimenting (we have to be sure that) the university
doesn’t lose the shirt on our backs. That becomes one of the hindering factors of what you can
and can’t do.
I think we can sit down with the System Office and just say, “Look, we need to be free to choose
what we’re doing and then work toward different models to see what are you contributing….”
Dr. Buccini –We have no problem, we can do that as much as you like, if we did it totally online,
we have no problem. (Without some clarification) we’d have to pay the System Office, even if,
let’s say (a course was being offered) a guest. So they’re providing no services, but we’re
paying them; what are they providing?
This has been a long, long battle, this battle has been going on for about five years and it’s at the
Board level and they’re starting to look at this, etc. All I would like is us to have what we
believe is best for Western with the definitions in place, how we’re defining our “hybrid course,”
what the educational plan is and checks and balances are so that we can say, “Hey we’ve got our
act really together here and this is how we’d like to do it.”
Dr. Joel – May I make a couple of comments. I’ve been the Chair of this Committee for a couple
of years now. One is that the faculty who served on the Committee had described a (inaudible)
as not being an issue for quality and I think this search bears that out. Another issue that has
been brought to the Committee’s attention is a member of the faculty in education who teaches
graduate students who are required to complete a Masters in order to remain certified. And the
comments that they have forwarded to him and he has forwarded to me indicate very strongly
that they have great difficulty meeting more than once a term because they’re busy professionals
working in schools and, in some cases, live quite a distance from Western. The commute would
add to their difficulties in completing their courses, completing their programs on time,
completing their degrees on time. So those seem to me to be compelling arguments for strong
consideration for giving guests leeway to offering the courses that they need.
Dr. Buccini – I respectfully disagree with that. First of all, we really have no checks and
balances in there right now by departments in terms of making some decisions with respect to
how many courses in a department’s curriculum its members feel would be appropriate to have
on-line. How many times they would really like to have the faculty meet with the students? We
have 1000 students; … I’ve done my own informal surveys … and I asked them about doing
them all on-line and I got the exact opposite response. So, number three, if we do it all on-line,
let’s say, then in effect, the rest of our students are subsidizing those graduate students because
those dollars are not available to put into other programs at the university that we’re paying the
System Office. This is a broad issue; I don’t think it’s an individual faculty issue. …As a
faculty, we have to make some decisions.
Dr. Schlicht – I was wondering, (if the issue) is… about not losing money, why don’t you just
double the minimum enrolled in a class, that’s now 24 students. If it’s on-line, we could solve
that issue.
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
29
Dr. Buccini – If the faculty would like to make that recommendation, I would be happy to accept
that.
Dr. Whittemore – Gene, I’m sorry, something went by very fast there and it was a question that
came out of my department, from (a colleague) who does a lot of CSU Online course teaching,
who said, “Well, an intercession or summer course should never be hybrid. But if it’s regular
term, it should.” And it sounded like you were saying that somehow the way it’s set up, the
fiscal issue is not a problem for intercession or summer offerings. Can you explain that?
Dr. Buccini – The reason why is because when we have to calculate the cost during an academic
year, we take (a percent) of your salary in the cost of one course. When we pay you during the
summer, we’re paying you at an adjunct rate, so the cost is $3000, $4000.
Dr. Bassett – Is there a national hybrid policy in place now? I mean, is there a percentage or…?
Dr. Buccini – There’s an informal one that we put into place that’s 20%. And it said that if you
want less than 20%, you needed my approval and the reason for that is I want to be sure how
we’re doing if we’re going to get it passed.
Dr. Bassett – I understand the revenue part of it. So right now with the hybrid policy, … any
faculty can essentially run with these courses (as) hybrid without approval?
Dr. Buccini – Absolutely.
Dr. Bassett – Without departmental approval?
Dr. Buccini – Right now, in most departments, that’s correct. That’s what I said. I think that’s
an issue that we need a recommendation for so that we do have some checks and balances.
Dr. Bassett – Gene, I’m on the Web Vista Committee for our school and they’re actually calling
them “web-enhanced courses,” instead of “hybrid courses” and we’re looking for a definition on
that.
Dr. Campbell – When you use WebCT to deliver a course, a hybrid course, don’t they have to at
least meet a couple of times in the beginning so that the students can learn how to do it all? I
was under the impression that CSU Online was more (self-contained) so that it was set up so you
didn’t have to meet (on the ground).
Dr. Joel – WebCT has training courses for students on-line so that they can get in, take a course,
a training course to learn how to take a course on line. It’s not a catch-22. They can basically
get into your course, and they actually have access to the on-line courses. But it’s like a week or
two before the course actually begins: let them get on, try out the thing, see what things are.
Online classes provide just another mode of delivery and what they allow our students, who have
a difficulty attending because of distance, because of temporal constraints, all the above, they
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
30
provide another way of taking courses. They’re not a replacement for the courses on-site.
They’re just another way of doing it.
Getting back to what you were saying about departments, the way it is set up, I think what’s
more important is the department comes back and its faculty says what would be appropriate for
this course, at this time, and not simply put a number on it. But really look at the course and say
these courses are appropriate on-line, which courses are not appropriate, which ones are better in
a blended fashion. I think that leads to a lot of discussion. It’s like the thorn in the lion’s paw
that’s stopping us from really running with it and really trying out a lot things. I don’t know the
answer.
Pres. Nair – If I could make a suggestion? Maybe what the Committee ought to do is go and talk
to Dr. Buccini, get the list, and then bring it to the September session. Does that make sense?
Dr. Joel – Thank you very much.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A.
Annual Reports
Pres. Nair – Noted that the annual report from the Holistic Health Studies program was just
received and distributed to Senators.
Dr. Ross – Since we are only receiving these reports may I make a motion to receive all of the
reports?
Pres. Nair – there is no need to make a motion to receive. We have received them already. I just
want to go through them to see if there are any comments.
1. Research and Development Committee (No comments)
2. Westside Nature Preserve (No comments)
3. Promotion and Tenure Committee: Pres. Nair noted that the Committee is addressing
the six resolutions submitted to it by the University Senate and will forward a report by
October, 2005 which is what was requested of the P & T. (No further comments)
4. EAP Committee (No comments)
5. Faculty Development and Recognition Committee (No comments)
6. Student Life Committee: Dr. Schlicht was curious about the drop/add policy, based on
his reading of their minutes. However, in the absence of Committee members, Pres.
Nair offered to contact Dr. Simon to see if he had an answer.
7. Center for Professional Development: Pres. Nair noted that the report received in the
Senate packet needs to be replaced with the one that was distributed today.
8. Admissions Committee (No comments)
9. UPBC: Pres. Nair noted that this report was accepted at the April meeting, but that the
revised report from Dean Vaden-Goad could be received one more time. In the April
report, the Assessment Committee had made some recommendations to the Senate and
the Senate did not take any actions on them. Then Jerry Wilcox brought the matter to
Senate Minutes 5/18/05
31
the UPBC and the UPBC forwarded the recommendations to the Office of the
Academic Vice President. So that’s why the Assessment Committee matter was not on
the agenda of this meeting.
10. IACUC report on animal research (No comments)
11. Institute for Holistic Studies. (No comments)
V. OTHER BUSINESS
None received.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn (Munz/Aina)
Meeting adjourned 5:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D’Aurio – Recording Secretary
Robert Whittemore – Senate Secretary
SENATE RESOLUTIONS
May 18, 2005
R-05-05-01: THE SENATE SHALL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF ITS MARCH 2005
MEETING. Passed with two abstentions.
R-05-05-02: INSOFAR AS THE CSU BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS AUTHORIZED THE
CHANCELLOR TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE PRE-EMPLOYMENT
BACKGROUND VERIFICATION POLICY, THE WCSU SENATE PROPOSES TO LIMIT
THE SCOPE OF ANY EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND CHECK TO VERIFICATION OF
INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM AN APPLICANT AS SPECIFIED IN THE JOB
DESCRIPTION FOR A SPECIFIC POSITION, AND TO REQUIRE CONSENT AND
DISCLOSURE ONLY FOR WHAT WILL BE CHECKED.” Passed with two opposed.