general faculty meeting friday, october 22, 2021, 3:30-5

General Faculty Meeting Friday, October 22, 2021, 3:30-5:00 p.m.

Oak Room and Zoom Agenda

1. Announcements

2. Approval of Minutesa. Meeting of April 9, 2021 (p. 2-14)b. Meeting of May 5, 2021 (p. 15-17)c. Meeting of May 20, 2021 (p. 18-29)d. Meeting of July 8, 2021 (p. 30-39)e. Meeting of Sept. 17, 2021 (p. 40-54)

3. PHAT Update: Kim Doughty. (PHAT Meeting Minutes)

4. Adjournment

General Faculty Meeting October 22, 2021

Weather permitting, the meeting will be followed by a reception hosted by the Faculty Welfare Committee/AAUP

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/AC/2021-2022/Minutes/PHATMinutes/PHATMinutes2021-2022.html

Fairfield University General Faculty Meeting

April 9, 2021 Draft Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

There were no proxies used for this meting.

Chair David Downie called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m.

6. Announcements

Prof. Downie asked faculty to use the raise hand function, rather than inserting questions into the chat during the question and answer sections following the upcoming presentations.

Prof. Patrick Brooks, Chair of the Educational Technologies Committee reminded faculty of the technology survey currently underway. People should have received an email today with the link.

Prof. Walter Hlawitschka,, Chair of Faculty Salary Committee (FSC) made the following announcement:

Last year the Faculty voluntarily reopened a multi-year agreement and agreed to the elimination of a planned salary increase and a temporary, one-year reduction in the University’s match of retirement contributions. We did this because of the clear risks to the long-term health of the institution and because we were told that the Board of Trustees expected a significant drop in revenues and an unexpected increase in COVID-related expenses. The FSC position was to act quickly with concessions to compensation to address the expected dire situation. Those concessions, however, were conditional upon the lower forecasted revenues of $11.1 million actually occurring. Specifically, our MOU states that if the projected shortfall in adjusted undergraduate tuition and room and board turns out to be less than $11.1 million, there will be a restoration of compensation based on a formula.

Since the restoration formula is calculated from budgetary numbers determined by the administration, we entered this agreement with a great deal of trust that the administration will be transparent in providing the relevant data. Restoration, if there is to be one, will be based on actual Fiscal Year 2021 budget data. These data will be available after June 30, 2021. At this time, the administration has informed the FSC of the following: "We are trending positive against the revenue target used for restoration."

We have not yet seen the data so we cannot answer questions at the moment as to what the potential size of the restoration may be. We hope to know more by the next General Faculty meeting and hope to make a presentation and entertain questions at that time.

He concluded with a personal comment, noting that this has been a difficult year for faculty members- trying to design courses with different formats, taking risks in coming to campus, and being concerned about bringing illness home, etc. But it appears that the University is emerging from the pandemic in good health. He was happy to share a bit of hope at the end of the semester.

7. Approval of Minutes

Motion [Caster/Bowen] to approve the minutes of February 5, 2021

Motion passed unanimously

8. Annual report from the Director of the Magis Core


Prof. Elizabeth Petrino, Director of the Magis Core expressed appreciation for the efforts of all of the faculty involved in developing this new core. She then began going through the attached slides.

For those new to Fairfield, she explained that the Magis Core was approved by the General Faculty in February of 2018. It is currently in effect for students in the classes of 2023 and beyond. Soon the “classic core” will be a thing of the past. In the Magis core, there are 7 requirements in Tier 1- English 1001 and other courses in the Humanities and Math. These courses are taken in the first two years, ideally in the first year. There are 8 courses in Tier 2, including additional work in the Humanities and courses in the Natural Sciences and Social/Behavioral Sciences. These courses can be taken at any time during the 4 years. Finally the signature elements consist of the following: one Interdisciplinary course (ID); 3 Social Justice courses (SJ)- an introduction, and 2 additional courses, at least one of which is focused on race, studied intersectionally with gender and class; and 3 Writing Across the Curriculum courses (WAC), one of which could be Writing in the Discipline (WID).

The Magis Core is in its second year of launch. The goal is to create a uniform, discipline-based experience that provides flexibility and enables students to explore majors and minors. It is overseen by the Magis Core Curriculum Committee (MCCC) consisting of: the Coordinators of the Signature Elements, Profs. David Downie (ID), Kim Gunter (WAC/WID), and Kris Sealey (SJ); Vice Provost for Undergraduate Excellence Mark Ligas, CAS Associate Dean Scott Lacy; and Ms. Jessica Tomcho, Program Coordinator. Prof. Petrino gave a shout out to the hard work of this committee which meets twice monthly. She also presented the full membership of each signature element subcommittee.

Moving on to recent accomplishments, she presented data on signature element course approvals and participation in Course Development Institutes (CDIs). Several of the slides present data on all of the approved signature element courses by department and further broken down by element. She encouraged more submissions, particularly for SJ and SJR (Race). She noted the spread of courses, for example WAC/WID in Biology labs and in Spanish courses, ID in Honors and in some departments. Other departments considering ID courses should reach out to the Coordinator.

The signature element committees have also worked on making their membership and recruitment of members more transparent, making plans for rotating members, and aligning membership with the Journal of Record. A preference is for the SJ and ID committees to each include one member from the professional schools, and for the WAC/WID committee to include one member from the Writing Consultants. Forms for submitting course proposals have been updated and are available on the UCC and Magis Core websites. Though they will continue to accept submissions on a rolling basis, they are encouraging deadlines of September 1 for spring courses and January 15 for fall courses. Those deadlines align with the Registrar’s call for submitting courses. In addition, they are working on aligning attributes and definitions in Degree Works so that students and faculty can identify courses correctly. Finally, the stipend initiative for this semester ($500 for new course proposals) was successful in generating 20 proposals.

Prof. Petrino discussed the WAC/WID course release policy. The Magis Core proposal approved by the General Faculty included course releases for teaching WAC/WID courses. In April of 2019, a WAC/WID equity committee sent recommendations to the Provost. In February of 2021, the CAS Dean, in consultation with the Directors of the Core and of Core Writing developed a plan to operationalize the recommendations in the College. Other schools need to develop their own procedures. In CAS, faculty are eligible for 1 course release after teaching 3 WAC/WID courses. Only 1 release can be taken per year. Courses can be banked, but releases cannot. Faculty can contact the Director and/or Coordinator to confirm their eligibility. Once confirmed, the department chair would work with the Dean’s office to manage the timing of the release.

This year, the first Magis Core lecture featured Dr. Gwen Pough speaking on “Gender Matters in Black Lives Matter.” There were 185 views live for this interdisciplinary presentation. The objective was to


have students think about real world issues and implications of their studies. Prof. Petrino invited recommendations for next year’s speaker.

Moving on to assessment, Prof. Petrino described a successful retreat this past November with Dr. Ashley Finley from AAC&U. This retreat was a useful and productive opportunity, especially because of some of the work done before the conference. There were also panel discussions on adapting course formats after Dr. Finley’s lecture; panelists included faculty from across the schools. Dr. Finley’s talk often focused on things we already do. Of particular interest was her analysis of Fairfield’s Mission Statement for learning objectives. In one of the attached slides, she mapped some of the Mission Statement language onto learning goals and objectives for the Magis Core.

Last year there was a successful pilot of direct assessment of English 1001. They are currently working with Vice Provost Ligas on a second assessment, this one involving Religious Studies. Prof. Petrino and Associate Dean Sauer are being trained to manage and distribute artifacts in “Chalk and Wire,” a program from Campus Labs. The assessment team is also discussing indirect methods of assessment.

Looking to the future, they are continuing to working with the CAS Dean’s Office on enrollment management, with a special focus on Signature Element courses, including making sure that they are easily visible to students and faculty. They’re also working on a process for Study Abroad courses to be approved for signature elements and/or to make sure that students studying abroad continue to make progress through the core. They also want to encourage more departments to offer a WID course for upper level majors. Collaboration with the Library continues, looking at creating an assessable Information Literacy session for capstone/seminar (WID) courses. Another goal is increasing ID offerings and increasing other signature elements within the Honors Program.

Prof. Petrino concluded with a slide showing upcoming opportunities for CDIs in SJ and ID, and a WAC/WID workshop. Participants will receive stipends for participating and additional stipends for submitting a proposal (up to 2 proposals for WAC/WID). There are also enhancement funds available for speakers or special events for ID and SJ courses.

At this point the floor was opened to questions.

Prof. Claudia Calhoun asked whether previous participation in a CDI precluded signing up for another CDI. Prof. Petrino said there was no rule though there were some space limitations. She encouragedapplication to a CDI for a different signature element.

Prof. Thomas Schmidt asked whether a course approved for a signature element as an in-person offering would have to reapply if it were offered online over the summer. Prof. Petrino said that she didn’t think that general course approvals distinguished between online and in person offerings, so signature element approvals shouldn’t either. She noted that the one week course format does have a separate approval process in the College.

Prof. Kraig Steffen said that he put a link to courses that satisfy the core natural science requirement in the chat. Prof. Petrino said that those who want to call attention to subsets of courses like that should let her know. Those lists could be placed on the core website. She also reminded faculty to reach out to the Director and/or Coordinators if they might want to serve on any of the committees. Prof. Downie noted that core science courses provide great opportunities for ID experiences. He added his thanks to the Core Science Review Committee.

Seeing no further questions, Prof. Downie thanked Prof. Petrino and all of those working on the Core Committees. His thanks were echoed with a virtual round of applause.

9. Update from the faculty on the Public Health Advisory Team

Before inviting the presentation to begin, Prof. Downie suggested that those with personal COVID questions might send them to Human Resources rather than asking at the meeting.


On behalf of the faculty members on the Public Health Advisory Team, Prof. Kim Doughty began going through the attached slides. She noted that the packet for today’s meeting contained a lengthier memo including all recommendations since the Team’s February presentation to the Faculty. Today’s presentation would be a briefer overview of key issues. She began by acknowledging the other faculty members on the Team- Profs. Jennifer Schindler-Ruwisch, Shelley Phelan, and Diane Mager.

With regard to testing and masks, the Team recommended following the CDC guidelines that fully vaccinated individuals be exempt from testing and quarantine. Aside from the exemptions, testing of 100% of the campus population continues weekly through the spring semester. The testing seems to be popular and necessary. There is some indication that students may be reluctant to provide full information to contact tracers, so the testing has been important in catching cases that otherwise might have been missed. The Team recommended excluding gaiters from the mask policy, but the Task Force is not implementing that recommendation.

As vaccines become increasingly available, the Team has been discussing the return to in-person operations. In late February they were advocating the option of in-person experiences in the summer and fall. By late March they suggested that Summer Session 2 would be an appropriate target for the return to fully in-person operations. They also endorsed plans for small, in-person ceremonies for graduating seniors with up to 2 guests per student. They decided that it would not be worth requiring that guests be tested in advance.

The University is exploring partnerships with different organizations to try to offer vaccines on campus for students and employees. The hope is that this will be possible as supply catches up with demand.

Much of the Team’s discussions have focused on a vaccination policy. They presented 2 options- either mandate vaccines with few exemptions or have voluntary vaccination from which students would have to actively opt-out. The options of what to do with those who opt out range from having them responsible for obtaining and documenting weekly COVID tests, to excluding them from campus housing, to allowing them to take only fully online courses. The Team has generally supported mandating vaccinations though there were some concerns about doing so before the vaccines have full FDA approval.

This week the Team recommended adopting a mandatory vaccination policy, contingent upon approval by legal counsel. Their rationale is that a high vaccination rate is necessary to protect students and employees as we return to in-person operations. That’s especially so in light of increased concerns about transmission with the new variants. Also, there is no vaccine yet approved for children; we need to think about the risks of employees and students bringing COVID home to their children. Finally, the Team considered the educational impact of students having to miss classes in order to quarantine when we’re back fully in-person. Institutional Research has surveyed student intentions and found that most have or will get vaccinated. However, 10% want to wait, 5% only will if it’s required, and 4% won’t at all. A mandatory policy would capture all but that last 4%. Prof. Doughty noted that more and more universities are announcing mandatory policies; so far 14 have. Such a policy would still need to address exemptions. With other vaccines that we mandate, students who have medical and/or religious exemptions are excluded from campus in the event of an outbreak. If we adopt the same policy in this case, we would need to determine how to define an outbreak.

At this point, the floor was opened to questions.

Prof. Joan Lee asked about the durability of the protection provided by vaccines- how long do we expect vaccines to be valid? Prof. Doughty said that presumably the policy would be subject to change, contingent on new evidence. So far they seem to be valid for 6 months or longer.

Prof. Steve Belmont asked about refusals for non-medical or religious reasons in programs that require in-person learning. Prof. Doughty said that the policy would likely exclude students who were not vaccinated and did not pursue an exemption from being in programs that require in-person learning. But


she noted that the language for religious exemptions includes strong philosophical objections, so students who feel strongly could probably get an exemption. Prof. Phelan added that we are monitoring what other schools are doing and will continue to do so.

There were no further questions, just another virtual appreciation for the Team’s work.

10. Adjournment

A motion to adjourn [Bowen/Van Dyke] was uncontested at 4:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Prof. Susan Rakowitz Secretary of the General Faculty



May 5, 2021 Draft Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty

1. Announcements

Chair David Downie called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. and explained the processes for using zoom. He then explained the procedure for the meeting. For each committee, the chair would offer a brief summary of the committee's annual report and take a few questions. Then, after each person on the ballot was identified, the floor would be opened to additional nominations. The election using the newly revised ballot would take place by email. Following the meeting, each member of the General Faculty would be emailed a unique, single use link to anonymously vote on the ballot.

2. Annual Reports and Elections

GFS Rakowitz explained that the ballot was prepared by the Committee on Committees. The Committee on Committees does not simply collect and list all nominations received, they serve as a nominating committee. They try to build a ballot that offers everyone interested in being elected a reasonable chance, while also keeping in mind whether particular committees would benefit from a balance of different degrees of experience, different disciplines/schools, etc. Ultimately the ballot is a first draft; it has at least one name per opening and then nominations from the floor are welcome for any opening.

Annual reports and committee minutes are posted at the General Faculty website: http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/

Prof. Walter Hlawitschka, chair of the Faculty Salary Committee, made the following statement in place of a summary of the Committee’s annual report:

It’s been a busy year for the FSC.

Immediately after the May elections last year, the new members of the FSC joined last year’s team to craft a revised MOU.

Recall, we were in the middle of a multi-year MOU when Covid hit. We were scheduled to receive a 3% salary increase and a 9% retirement contribution. Facing the dire financial risks posed by Covid, the FSC recommended, and the General Faculty approved, a freeze on salaries and a cut of 5.5% to retirement contributions. The faculty voluntarily reduced their compensation by 8.5%. The FSC was of the mind that the cuts were a little deeper than necessary. Not because we had a better forecast for the effects of Covid on the financial health of the institution. More because we were unhappy that the University continued a policy of exceptionally low draws from the endowment in the face of the Covid crisis. On top of that, the University took a “special draw” of $5mm from the endowment for long-term strategic initiatives that did not go to Covid-related expenditures or employee compensation.

So last year, in the spirit of compromise, the FSC accepted these cuts and “modified” the existing terms of the multi-year MOU, but on the condition that the cuts to salary and retirement contribution be restored if not necessary. When the FSC brought the modified proposal to the faculty in August, the minutes of that meeting show the FSC Chair summarized the conditions for restoration: “The budget includes an $11.1 million decrease in revenue from tuition, room and board. If on June 30, 2021, the loss is less than $11.1 million, then the difference is returned to the Faculty.”

The good news is that we are approaching June 30, and the University has had an excellent year collecting tuition. The freshman class size ended up being the second largest in history, and tuition


http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/

rates increased by 3% this year. And the estimates for dormitory occupancy is between 80 and 90%, probably closer to 90%. Covid did not end up taking a large bite out of these revenues. The administration has not yet provided all of our data requests, but the FSC believes that the revenue losses will be significantly less than $11.1 million. I have been at Fairfield University for 33 years and this year has been the hardest and most challenging. Faculty had to transition all in-person classes to remote only last spring. Then we had to create courses for the fall that could be taught both in-person and remotely simultaneously—the so-called hybrid model. Oh, and then the course needed to convert to remote only for the final few weeks of the semester. The Spring required similar challenges. Meanwhile we had to deal with the health risks of Covid, to ourselves and our families. Some of us regularly exposed ourselves while teaching in the classroom while many 100s of students tested positive for Covid. The time and effort necessary to address the many anxieties and concerns of our students during this turbulent period was extraordinary. The faculty stepped up and have shepherded the institution through this global crisis. We did so with the complete support and camaraderie of the administration and the university staff.

Restoration is coming, and you deserve it.

Restoration is in our contracts, but more importantly, restoration is fair, restoration is deserved, and restoration is the honorable thing for the institution to do.

Restoration is fair: The AAUP national faculty compensation survey was released a few weeks ago. The report shows that the average salary increase for all institutions last year was 1%. It was .8% for Master Degree institutions, and it was 1.1% for religiously affiliated institutions. Fairfield had a salary freeze, a 0% salary increase.

Restoration is deserved: The AAUP compensation survey reported that 60% of institutions had a salary freeze or reduction. The AAUP survey reported that only 30% had either a freeze or reduction in benefits. If these are independent events (not sure they are) than Fairfield was in the very small minority of 18% of institutions that did both. We might be the only institution in the middle of a multi-year agreement who did both!

Restoration is honorable: The faculty, administration, and staff, have put forth an extraordinary effort this year. The institution avoided potential catastrophic health and financial risk. The institution should now honor the MOU with a sense of gratitude to all.

Restoration is coming, and you deserve it.

The next meeting of the General Faculty is on May 20 when the President addresses this group. I have asked the General Faculty Secretary to add a report of the FSC to the meeting agenda. It is my hope that we will have clearer insight into the size of the restoration. I must report that we are not yet 100% in agreement with the administration on the metrics of restoration. We are in continuing collegial discussions. We believe that we can make the most progress for the faculty at this time by keeping our discussions at the Table and not in public.

I am happy to take questions now, but the Committee would prefer that questions specific to the restoration be left to the next report.

He then anticipated a question about next year’s compensation and responded with, Our current MOU covers next year’s compensation level. Faculty will be receiving a 4% increase to the salary pool (plus $150 flat increase per person) and the retirement match will go back to 9% starting July 1 of this year.

Election results are as follows:


General Faculty Secretary: Steve Bayne

Academic Council: Gwen Alphonso, David Crawford, Anita Fernandez, Shawn Rafalski, John Slotemaker, Janet Striuli, Toby Svoboda, John McDermott, Jessica Planas

Committee on Committees: Janie Leatherman, Valeria Martinez

Rank and Tenure: Tom Murray, Matt Kubasik

Research Committee: Sally Gerard, Dennis Keenan

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: Bill Abbott, Sila Alan, Alfred Babo, Linda Roney, Michael Sciandra

Non-Tenure Track Committee: Josh Elliott

Admission and Scholarships: Nazuk Sharma

Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees: Stephaney Morrison, Shawn Rafalski

Student Life Committee: Tanika Eaves, Nadia Zamin

Library Committee: Julie Berrett-Abebe, Li Zhang

Public Lectures and Events: Lucrecia Garcia-Iommi

Athletics Committee: Christine Denhup, Lin Lu

Sustainability: Sara Diaz, Sunil Purushotham

University Advancement: Sergio Adrada Rafael, Nicole Fletcher

Educational Planning Committee: LaTasha Smith, Sergio Adrada Rafael, Katya Bardos

Faculty Salary Committee: Ania Aksan, Aaron Weinstein

Faculty Development and Evaluation Committee: Annemarie Iddins, Nadia Zamin

Educational Technologies Committee: Angela Biselli, Lin Lu

Budget Committee: Katya Bardos

Merit Appeals: Uma Balaji, Aaron Van Dyke

3. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at noon.




May 20, 2021 Draft Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

Acting Chair Tom Murray called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.

1. Announcements

Prof. Murray explained that Chair Downie was unavailable, and as a former Faculty Chair he had been asked to sub in.

Prof. David Crawford, President of the Faculty Welfare Committee/AAUP announced the following awards:

CT State Conference-AAUP George E. Lang, Jr. Award

The George Lang Award is presented on behalf of the Faculty Welfare Committee in honor of George Lang. George Lang was a Professor of Mathematics and a faculty leader at Fairfield for thirty-six years, as well as an AAUP leader at the chapter, state, and national level. His colleagues on the CT State Conference-AAUP honor his memory by recognizing a faculty member at Fairfield who early in their career has shown awareness of and dedication to the AAUP mission to support academic freedom and faculty governance. The award is presented at the CT State Conference-AAUP Annual Spring Meeting.

The Faculty Welfare Committee is pleased to present this year’s George Lang Award to Rachelle Brunn-Bevel, Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology and Anthropology. Rachelle’s many contributions to Fairfield reflect the spirit of the Lang Award: She currently serves as Faculty Chair for Inclusive Excellence and as part of the Presidential Working Group for Inclusive Excellence. She is an active member of the advisory committees for the Black Studies, and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies programs. She is part of the core leadership team for “Civic Education Through the Promise of Democracy” funded by the Davis Educational Foundation. She was instrumental in designing the Social Justice signature element of the Magis Core. And she has served as co-chair of the MLK Celebration Planning Committee. In all of these roles, Rachelle has helped develop initiatives that support racial justice, anti-racism and the recruitment and retention of more diverse faculty. Rachelle’s leadership and service have strengthened shared governance and academic freedom by making Fairfield University a more just and inclusive place for faculty, staff, and students.

FWC Colleague of the Year Award

In August, 2020, The University Public Health Advisory Committee was expanded to include faculty members with scientific expertise to better leverage and offer expertise to inform decision making amidst the Covid-19 pandemic. Faculty members in biology, public health and nursing were selected and “charged with responding to specific questions raised by other members or teams of the COVID-19 Task Force, advising the University’s Senior Leadership on policy questions concerning Public Health and resolving conflicts in the guidance provided by the CDC, DPH and the State Higher Education Task Force.” This was no small assignment.

Yet, when these four individuals were approached with this formidable charge, none of them hesitated. They met weekly with scheduled agendas and conducted extensive research, communications and preparation meetings to represent the needs of faculty, staff and students in scheduled sessions, and helped disseminate decisions and the logic behind them. The fastidiousness with which they assumed their responsibilities revealed their expertise and commitment to science and our institution. The virus took unexpected twists and turns, testing our will and pushing our


boundaries. Their recommendations were complex and difficult. Yet, under the extraordinary leadership of Chair Kimberly Doughty, our Public Health Advisory faculty were relentless in their charge. They kept us safe. They kept us open, and they are responsible for allowing our mission to continue. For this, we are most grateful. The Faculty Welfare Committee would like to bestow the 2020-2021 “Colleague of the Year” award collectively to Shelley Phelan, Kimberly Doughty, Jennifer Schindler-Ruwisch and Diana Mager.

All of the award recipients were given a virtual round of applause and celebratory emojis.

2. Proposal from the Faculty Salary Committee (FSC) for allocation of the supplemental salaryfund

FSC Chair Walter Hlawitschka pointed to the memo in today’s packet about how to allocate monies set aside in the Memo of Understanding (MOU) in a pool called the supplemental fund. Historically this fund was used to bring full, associate, and assistant professors up to the 95th percentile in compensation for institutions like ours based on the AAUP survey. This year, the associate rank was below the 95th percentile average by $306. The FSC recommends that if restoration includes the supplemental budget, then first a flat dollar amount should go to associates to bring them up to the 95th percentile average. The remaining funds should be equally distributed to the base of all full-time faculty.

Motion (Hlawitschka/Scheraga): The Supplemental Salary Budget for the Academic Year ending June 2021 shall be allocated as follows: First, professors at the rank of full, associate, and assistant will be allocated a flat dollar amount to bring the average salary of each rank to the 95th percentile of IIA schools as reported by the most recent AAUP Annual Faculty Compensation Survey. Second, any remaining funds will be allocated as an equal percentage of base salary for all full-time faculty.

Prof. Nick Kapoor explained that he was an instructor and the motion doesn’t talk about the instructor rank. He understands the impetus and history about protecting tenure and the ranks of assistant and above, but hopes that moving forward, the FSC will look at the rank of instructor, which is below the 95th percentile. He also hopes the upcoming FSC will look at the adjunct faculty rate.

Prof. Alyson Martin asked whether discrepancies among schools were taken into account. Prof. Hlawitschka said that historically ranks were not equalized among schools. The proposal is for equal allocation across schools.

Prof. Nicole Fletcher, adding to Prof. Martin’s question, noted that she hoped in the future this money will be considered for evening out inequities in pay across schools, and that gender and racial inequities will also be looked at.

Prof. Gwen Alphonso said that people were rightly pointing out many different ways of possibly doing this distribution. What’s the process for determining how it’s done? Prof. Hlawitschka explained that the FSC puts forward a proposal. This year it might not be funded but they wanted to have a motion in case it is. He noted that people have raised valid points that may be worth discussion next year. Prof. Alphonso asked whether it was worth offering a motion directing the FSC to consider these issues. Prof. Hlawitschka said that they regularly get requests for future agenda items.

Prof. Crawford spoke in favor of the motion adding that these larger issues are deserving of robust discussion in the fall and he would be happy for the FWC to help facilitate those discussions.

Motion passed: 125-3-1

3. Report from the FSC on the status of restoration of salary and benefits as specified in thecurrent MOU

Prof. Hlawitschka began this agenda item by suggesting that today should be a celebration for the Fairfield family, but it may not be. He feels terrible that the FSC may have led you here when they asked the Faculty to make sacrifices last year. The administration told the FSC that the University was facing


dire prospects; they were projecting an $11.1 million loss. The FSC trusted the Administration and probably gave up more than other institutions, but did so with a restoration clause. If things were not as dire as expected i.e. the predicted shortfall did not materialize, then we would get back all or part of what we had given up. The FSC trusted the Administration without seeing pre- and post-Covid budgets. But they put a restoration clause in the MOU- trust and verify. We are now coming to the end of the first year in a two-year contract and the Administration projects restoration of foregone salary (3%) and less than 1% of foregone retirement. This should be a good story but the FSC and Administration are in disagreement about what the final level of restoration should be.

Referring to the attached slides, Prof. Hlawitschka explained that the $11.1 million shortfall in revenue presented by the Administration was to be a metric for how dire the situation was. The MOU speaks of the $11.1 million twice, indicating that any shortfall less than that amount will result in restoration. The FSC thinks it’s clear that the Administration should be showing where the numbers came in relative to the $11.1 million difference between a pre-Covid and post-Covid budget. But there’s a problem. The Administration says there never was a pre-Covid budget. Instead, there were expectations and projections with multiple numbers. Now the Administration can’t redo this calculation. The Administration now says the $11.1 million is not a loss forecasted in the budget the Board approved, even though the MOU references “the $11.1 million loss forecast in the FY 21 budget approved by the BOT on 6/25/2020.”

He explained that restoration was the FSC’s proposal, to be enacted if the University was financially healthy and didn’t need the Faculty’s sacrifices. The Administration didn’t want to look at revenues minus expenses or total budget surplus. They instead insisted on looking only at specific undergraduate revenues even though that isn’t the best measure of financial health. The FSC wanted clearer, audited numbers, but compromised on the $11.1 million shortfall in undergraduate tuition and room and board revenue. The wording of that section of the MOU, “undergraduate net tuition and room & board revenue,” was entirely from the Administration. When the FSC recommended approval of the MOU to the General Faculty on August 17, the FSC chair said (from the minutes): “The budget includes an $11.1 million decrease in revenue from tuition, room and board. If on June 30, 2021, the loss is less than $11.1 million, then the difference is returned to the Faculty.” Those statements guided Faculty votes. They were a material representation of fact with administrators in attendance, yet no one offered a correction. Why would the Administration provide wording referring to a number that they cannot now calculate and that isn’t tracked in their budget processes?

The day after the General Faculty voted to approve the new MOU, the FSC chair requested the pre- and post-Covid budgets to see how the numbers align with the $11.1 million shortfall. The information wasn’t provided and the FSC is now being told the numbers don’t exist because there never was a pre-Covid budget. Given that the relevant number can’t be tracked, the FSC’s solution is to ask not for more money, but for more data. They want to review all of the financials in order to gauge the financial health of the institution to reach a fair level of restoration. The Administration’s solution is to ignore most of clauses 2a and 2b of the MOU and look only at the June budget compared to actual revenues, even if the June budget doesn’t show the predicted shortfall. Their argument is that anything over the June budget numbers is a measure of restoration. The FSC agrees in principle, but they also need the pre-Covid budget as a roadmap to the appropriate comparison, to know which budget lines are included in the calculation of restoration. Prof. Hlawitschka used wine glasses of different shapes filled to varying levels as an analogy for the importance of having the right comparisons. His main point was that the amount of reduction of the $11.1 million shortfall between the pre-Covid budget and the post-Covid budget and the amount in surplus to the post-Covid June Board-approved budget, should be the exact same number. He pointed out, however, that only by looking at the shortfall calculation can one know which numbers to include from the June budget. He also gave concrete examples of the problem of which budget lines to include in the calculation of restoration. The MOU states that the $11.1 million shortfall is to be a “net” number. In one calculation shown by the Administration, the shortfall was net of financial aid and in another calculation the shortfall was not net of this $90 million number. It was also unclear how/where part-time students were coming into the budget.


Returning to the slides showing the language of the MOU, he noted that 2.a and line one of 2.b (what he highlighted in yellow on his slides) is what the Administration has described as “preamble” and not material in calculating restoration. The only phrase in 2a that they seem to put weight on is, “any other COVID-19 adjustments.” The Administration believes that they can make any adjustment to the restoration calculation so long as they label it a Covid-19 adjustment. The text he highlighted in green, the last part of section 2.b of the MOU, is what the Administration is focused on. The FSC’s position is that that text in 2.b is correct, but only with appropriate comparison data to show which lines of the June budget to include.

Prof. Hlawitschka then quickly moved to another problem. The MOU calls for restoration to be “distributed as soon as administratively practical.” The FSC interprets that to mean as soon as possible, while the Administration plans to pay out the restoration over the next year.

Prof. Hlawitschka concluded his presentation by explaining that the Faculty earned restoration and the University can afford it. Last year they made a special draw of $5 million from the endowment for strategic initiatives and they are doing so again this year. Their regular endowment draw is lower than the national average. It looks like the University had the highest level of revenue in its history, with two large first year classes coming in and replacing two smaller classes, an increase in graduate enrollments, and a halt to study abroad meaning more tuition dollars staying at Fairfield. The FSC stated this assessment to the Administration and they were not corrected. The FSC is not asking for anything more than what was agreed to in the MOU. Faculty have performed remarkably and the University is thriving because of faculty, staff, and administrators working together.

Before opening the floor to questions, Chair Murray asked about providing more of this information to the Faculty in writing. Prof. Hlawitschka said he was working on a summary to be distributed to the Faculty.

Prof. Paul Caster, who noted that he has spent ten years serving on the Budget Committee, said this sounded like outrageously bad faith negotiating. He asked whether reference to the June budget meant a one-month budget or full year or rolling budget. He also noted that it would have been better to look at the bottom line than at a top line number and that graduate enrollments are higher than ever. Also, the University received some reimbursement of Covid-related expenses. Prof. Hlawitschka said that the budget referred to is the one passed by the Board last June and the FSC is fine with using that budget. But that budget has no line for “net tuition and room & board” even though that’s what’s in the MOU. The FSC wants transparency. He went on to note that the FSC intentionally hasn’t used the term “bad faith;” they felt the members of the Administrative team were well-intentioned, good people.

Prof. Jennifer Adair asked, if the $11.1 million shortfall doesn’t exist, then what did we vote on last year? It seems like an enormous bait and switch, especially in a year when we’re making major sacrifices. And it seems like the FSC is working in the absence of important data. If the shortfall doesn’t exist and the University is healthy, what’s the rationale for not fulfilling the two-year agreement? Prof. Hlawitschka said he would not speculate on the Administration’s rationale.

Prof. John McDermott asked whether it was true that in the negotiations last year the Administration fought having graduate tuition included in the restoration formula. Prof. Hlawitschka said that was a touchy point. The FSC expected a bump up in graduate revenues and thought the Administration’s focus on undergraduate revenue might be an attempt to minimize revenues, and therefore restoration. He said that the FSC ultimately agreed to ignore graduate revenues even though they saw this as not optimal. This year the FSC was angered and disturbed to find that there was at least one budget shared with the Budget Committee by the Administration that moved about $1 million from graduate tuition to undergraduate tuition which results in $1 million less of restoration. He said that this was an example of how withholding budget information by the Administration may have disadvantaged the Faculty’s restoration.

Prof. Bob Epstein, noting that he was neither a lawyer nor a finance professor, said that he had served on FSC and had chaired it for the first multi-year contract. It was very hard on FSC in those years, there were lots of disagreements. But there was never a refusal to share information or dishonesty about the terms


under discussion. The MOU refers to, “the $11.1 million loss forecast…” If they now say there isn’t such a thing, it seems like a breach of contract. Prof. Hlawitschka said that they did consult with a lawyer paid for by the FWC. The attorney thinks there is a strong case. Prof. Hlawitschka did want to correct one thing- he’s not sure that during last year’s negotiations, the FSC asked for the pre- and post-Covid budgets. The numbers the Administration presented were plausible and had been presented to the Board, so the FSC accepted them without seeing the budgets. Now the FSC is asking for the budgets to verify that the June budget reflects the $11.1 million shortfall as required in the MOU. Also, the differences between the lines in the March and June budgets will provide the roadmap necessary to understand which numbers from the June budget go into the restoration calculation. Prof. Epstein added, we’re seeing a document with explicit reference to calculable budget differences but the Administration is saying they’re not calculable.

Prof. Irene Mulvey said that she served on and chaired the FSC multiple times. She too is stunned by this report. The Administration put language into a signed MOU and now that it’s time to carry out the terms they can’t do it? She thanked the dues paying members of the FWC for making the consultation with the attorney possible. She knows the attorney the FSC consulted and knows that the word “fraud” has come up in those discussions.

Motion (Mulvey/Steffen): The General Faculty calls on President Nemec to direct his administration to provide the Faculty Salary Committee with all relevant financial information.

Motion to amend (Alphonso/Mulvey): amend by adding, “as requested by the FSC” to the end of the motion.

Motion to amend passed 134-2-1

Prof. John Thiel spoke in favor of the motion, noting that he is a member of the FSC. He said they are requesting information because the calculation that the MOU calls for can’t be done because one number must be subtracted from another. Yet the Administration says they only have one number, describing the other number as a “concept,” or something that doesn’t exist. The Administration’s position is then, we can’t do this calculation so here’s what we’re offering. It’s the height of paternalism. The FSC wants a larger discussion about what’s fair.

Prof. Cecelia Bucki expressed disgust with what we heard. She was reminded of the origins of the FWC– A slush fund was discovered while the Administration was pleading poverty. She was considering opposing President Nemec’s upcoming address.

Prof. Crawford spoke in favor of the motion noting that, if necessary, zero can be subtracted from $11.1 million

The motion as amended: The General Faculty calls on President Nemec to direct his administration to provide the Faculty Salary Committee with all relevant financial information as requested by the FSC.

Motion passed: 144-1-0

4. Address to the General Faculty by President Mark Nemec

President Nemec began by thanking the Faculty for making the time and for the spirited conversation that just took place. To provide some context for the restoration discussion he noted that the MOU section that the FSC had highlighted in green was clear. He said that he sometimes makes the mistake of assuming all processes are understood by faculty. Fifteen months ago, in the midst of Covid, we were uncertain about whether we would be able to have a single student on campus the next year. It was a monumental challenge that was difficult for everyone. What we’ve been managing through is pretty exceptional, and he thanked the Faculty for their work in that regard. He said he has every confidence that the Administration and FSC will figure out restoration.


He mentioned that he had wanted to discuss some larger initiatives and speak to two particular items that arose in conversation with the Faculty Secretary and Provost, namely the Bellarmine College initiative and the administrative restructuring in the wake of the departure of EVP Lawlor. He reminded the Faculty that last May he spoke of four key principles that are still relevant: 1) not losing sight of your core purpose or mission; 2) attention to detail and precision of language; 3) tolerance for ambiguity; 4) being mindful of, but not overwhelmed by, the ambient environment.

Looking to academic year 2022, he noted that he thankfully sees healthy enrollments, though he expects the post-Covid world to remain somewhat volatile. Nationally, admissions policies have changed so that schools can continue to try to recruit students even after those students have committed to another university. We expect to make our class and it will be a strong class academically according to incoming metrics. Robust enrollments are proceeding according to plan, though the numbers of first-generation students and students of color are flat. Applications from those groups are down nationally. We’re looking at a variety of new programs in the professional schools and the College.

President Nemec explained that videotaped addresses have their place but aren’t necessarily the best vehicle for dissemination, and as such wanted to share with Faculty strategic initiatives he has discussed previously. These include: 1) an emphasis on big data across all field of inquiry, including through the Fredrickson Family Innovation Lab and the School of Engineering; 2) a focus on responsive community and industry partnerships, in particular Dean Greenwald is pursuing some exciting opportunities with Communication; 3) geographic expansion with a finance MBA in Shanghai and explorations of offering second degree nursing in the sun belt. The big limit on growth in nursing locally is clinical placements while other markets are experiencing shortages; 4) focus on new modalities, especially recruiting and retaining graduate students in online modalities. Finally, he spoke of the liberal arts’ core and its focus on the ability to communicate and think of others while also innovating across fields of inquiry. Personally, he is teaching again in the Honors Program, and that is a way of underscoring the duality of the moment.

He went on to note that a University is more than the sum of excellent academic programs. It is also a civic and community institution. We have been focusing on the arts and culture at Fairfield, and Quick Center (virtual) attendance was through the roof this year. The new Convocation Center under construction will continue to enhance the civic role of our institution.

Beyond the evolving and innovative academic and arts programs, Fairfield has been a beacon and we have come together in service in big and small ways. The Connecticut College Corps project went from ideation to announcement within five weeks, thanks to the hard work of Dean Laurie Grupp and others. It will take upwards of 500 college students and train them to be mentors to elementary and secondary students. Already over 1000 students have applied.

Today marks the beginning of the Ignatian year, really 14 months, that starts with the 500th anniversary of the wounding of Ignatius and ends next July. The year emphasizes walking with those on the margins and with youth. We have begun work on establishing a two-year college modeled on the Arrupe College at Loyola Chicago. Here we will call it Bellarmine. There is still much to do, but he envisions it as a bridge program, to Fairfield and other Catholic, Jesuit institutions, most likely located in Bridgeport. Prof. Bob Hannafin is working with other faculty on how to operationalize the concept. The hope is to determine by September whether it is doable. It would offer an Associates degree based in the core curriculum, serving students of color, first generation, and Pell-eligible students.

President Nemec next spoke briefly of the transition in administrative ranks. The new Senior Vice President position will involve the spine of administration and finance, specifically, finance, IT, and facilities, all of which are currently reporting to the President. Student Affairs and Institutional Research have moved under the Provost and will stay there. Enrollment Management and Human Resources are now reporting to the President.

The President wrapped up his remarks with a reminder of how uncertain things were 15 months ago. The way we got here is the way we’ll move forward, by being mindful of our mission, being precise and detail oriented, having tolerance for ambiguity and being mindful of the ambient environment. Seeing students


walk across Bellarmine terrace this week is what this is all about. We’re student-focused, we’re all here dedicated to inquiry and to our students, and he looks forward to continuing to work with the faculty as we move forward.

Prof. Betsy Bowen said that, you just used the words, attention to detail. When I hear that and then hear that the $11.1 million reference in the MOU was just a concept, that seems profoundly inattentive to detail. It doesn’t seem consistent. President Nemec said that he was walking a fine line. He would be happy to talk with Prof. Hlawitschka about how our process works, but out of respect for the ongoing collegial process won’t go into that here. That’s why we have an FSC and Administrative team. The number is knowable, it was even highlighted in green in the FSC’s slides. He’s trying to be respectful of the process and ongoing negotiations. Everyone sees that it’s been a hell of a year. There is restoration. We need to figure out the mechanism; he believes the process will work out.

Prof. David McFadden thanked the President for his presentation. He said he had first become aware of the Bellarmine College in his role as Academic Council liaison to the Mission and Identity Committee of the Board. But he has heard very little about faculty involvement in the project and we need more involvement. President Nemec said he agreed. The first step of the process is for the Board to agree that the project is consistent with our mission and identity. At the next Board meeting they will talk about what we need to do and who needs to do it. Then there will be more opportunities for faculty engagement.

Prof. Beth Boquet said she wanted to bring together the Bellarmine College and restoration issues. As a first-generation college student herself, she thinks we need to be very cautious in developing all aspects of the program and extremely careful in recruiting for it. In contrast, the restoration questions are pretty straightforward. They should be able to be addressed in conversations between the FSC and the administrative team. The fact that those discussions have gone so sideways gives me great pause in proceeding with the complex processes of developing Bellarmine College. President Nemec said that in an Ignatian model, the first step is to look inward- how did we get here? He is supportive of coming to agreement through collegial discussions. That’s my understanding of the process. Shared governance is something I know well and respect, so I want to respect the process. With good will, the FSC and Administrative team should come to a common understanding. My understanding is that the green line in the MOU is calculable. $11.1 million is a number we used to calculate the final budget and we did better than expected, so there will be restoration.

Prof. Epstein said, I wasn’t going to speak today; I think of this as a state of the university address and I wanted to hear about broader issues. But you referred to faculty’s choice to focus so much time on the FSC report. We hear how strong our finances our, but then you seemed to dismiss our concerns. You didn’t really acknowledge the sacrifices of a lot of people. Today we’re focused on faculty. We turned our teaching on a dime. There were more students on campus than expected in large part because of faculty behaviors. We worked nonstop for students to have worthwhile on-campus experiences, without excluding remote students. We also made financial sacrifices, especially the younger faculty in terms of the temporary drop in the retirement match. So we’re very concerned about something that looked concrete and now seems ambiguous. It’s especially concerning in the context of sacrifices. President Nemec replied that, I hope nothing I said was dismissive in any way. The entire leadership of the university is appreciative of all that the faculty and staff have done to manage through this period. I would have thought the process would have played out more in discussions between the FSC and Administration. The good news is that there is restoration and it’s significant. I trust in the good will of the Faculty and Administration. As steward of the institution, I don’t want to see faculty not feel appreciated. I don’t think it’s appropriate for the President to get involved in negotiations. There will be restoration; it needs to be worked out so as not to delay the contracts. In my mind it’s simply an algebraic equation. I trust the process and trust the faculty to trust us. I wish that the assumptions of intent that predated me would not continue. Prof. Epstein said, I hope you hear the genuine consternation on the part of the Faculty. I hope we have shown you that we want to help you fulfill your vision of the university. Thanks for your time.


President Nemec thanked the Faculty for the opportunity to speak, and encouraged faculty engagement as we move forward.

5. Adjournment

A motion to adjourn [Ripley Crandall/Rakowitz] was uncontested at 5:13 p.m.



General Faculty Meeting Thursday July 8, 2021

Zoom, 3-5 pm Draft Minutes of Meeting

These Minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

Proxies at this meeting:

Held by Held for Shelly Phelan Shannon Gerry Bob Epstein Peter Bayers Bob Epstein Emily Orlando Michelle DiMarzo Katherine Schwab Paul Caster Jie Tao John Miecznikowski Eileen Reilly-Wiedow Suzanne Chamlin-Richer Marice Rose Laura McSweeney Paul Baginski Laura McSweeney Shannon Harding Adam Rugg Annemarie Iddins

Final Vote only Susan Rakowitz Irene Mulvey Brian Walker Shelley Phelan

Chair Mousumi Bhattacharya called the Zoom meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 1. Announcements: Professor Bhattacharya welcomed everyone, announced that she was not

Prof. David Downie, and explained that she had been asked to fill as Prof. Downie wasunavailable.

2. Consideration of proposed FY 2022-2023 MOU Modification and Extension (attachments).

Prof. Walter Hlawitschka, Chair of the Faculty Salary Committee (FSC) began by reminding the faculty that last summer the Administration Salary Committee (ASC) requested that faculty set aside a multi-year agreement and take a reduction in salary and benefits in the face of a crisis created by the Covid-19 pandemic. In response to this, the FSC recommended, and the general faculty agreed to take cuts to salary and benefits with the promise of restoration if the cuts were not needed.


Prof. Hlawitschka continued that the faculty should be proud about the way we responded. We gave up our salary increases for FY 2021-2022 and 5.5 % of our retirement match, for the well being of the university. We sacrificed a lot, but we also said that if it isn=t needed, we want it back.

Prof. Hlawitschka continued that a year later it was clear that the full cuts were not needed and now it is time for restoration. A month ago, however, it was also clear that the FSC and ASC disagreed about how to determine the final level of restoration. Prof. Hlawitschka shared a slide quoting from section 2 of the FY 2021-22 MOU Modification and Extension Agreement:

2. The modifications to the existing MOU for FY 21 described in 1 (a) and 1 (b) aboveare proposed specifically to mitigate the anticipated negative financial impacts resultingfrom the COVID-19 pandemic.

a. The need for the mitigation described in 1 (a) and 1 (b) becomes unnecessary (inwhole or in part) in the event the University=s losses to undergraduate tuition and room& board revenue throughout FY 21, due to lower enrollments, lower residency, or anyother COVID-19 adjustments to undergraduate tuition, room & board are smaller thanthe $11.1 million loss forecast in the FY 21 budget approved by the BOT on 6/25/2020.b. To the extent that the specific revenue losses described in 2 (a) are smaller than $11.1million, as determined at the FY 21 year-end close, the foregone salary increases andretirement contributions described in 1 (a) and 1 (b) will then be restored to faculty inFY 22 beginning with the merit raises, then the supplemental budget, and lastly theretirement plan match.

b. The amount of restoration will equal the difference between i) the actual FY 21undergraduate net tuition and room & board revenue as determined at the FY 21year-end close and ii) the undergraduate net tuition, room & board revenue in the BOTapproved FY 21 budget from 6/25/2020.

Prof. Hlawitschka reported that the ASC determined there would be no lump sum payment for last year, only a restoration in base salary going forward and the ASC determined that there would be approximately 1% restoration of the 5.5% reduction of retirement contribution for last year. Prof. Hlawitschka stated that the ASC=s determination was made based on their interpretation that the appropriate way to measure restoration was the last sentence of section 2.b. of last year=s MOU modification and extension agreement, but the FSC thought the A$11.1 million loss forecast in the FY 21 budget approved by the BOT on 6/25/2020" was supposed to play a crucial role in determining the level of restoration. Because of this, he said, the FSC asked to see all the financials, because if you can=t measure that $11.1 million, we can=t measure restoration.

Since that disagreement, Prof. Hlawitschka reported that FSC and the ASC reached a compromise: a revised and extended MOU that the FSC enthusiastically supports.

Prof. Hlawitschka highlighted the following points about this MOU revision and extension:

! Restoration of 2.25% merit salary budget forgone last year will be paid to individualfaculty members in the form of a lump sum on or before August 31, 2021.

! The supplemental budget of .75% of the FY2021 salary budget will be paid to individualfaculty members in the form of a lump sum on or before August 31, 2021. (Per themotion passed at GFM on May 29, 2021, the Supplemental budget will result in faculty


at the associate rank receiving a fixed dollar payment of $306 and faculty at all ranks receiving a payment of .66% of their base salary).

! These two salary restorations will result in faculty receiving a check for about 3% oftheir FY 2021 base salary.

! The university=s 403(b) matching contribution will be restored to 9% starting July 1,2021.

! There will be no restoration of forgone retirement contributions, so there is a cost, andin recognition of that cost over the next years (starting September 1, 2021) we will geta Asupplemental budget@ increase of 1.75% of individual faculty=s base salary.

! Effective September 1, 2021 each faculty member will also receive an increase to basesalary of $150 prior to the supplemental and merit salary increases.

! Starting on September 1, 2021, each faculty member will receive a merit salary increaseof 2.25%.

! These three September increases will result in a increase to base salary of a little over4%. This is in addition to the 3% being restored by the end of summer.

! In recognition of the sacrifices of faculty the MOU has been extended a year in whichwe will again have a Asupplemental budget@ increase of 1.75%.

! The second year will also again have a merit salary increase of 2.25%.

! The two salary increases in the second year add up to about a 4% increase in base salary,which is about 1% higher than in the recent past

! The MOU revision and extension includes a provision for an independent legal reviewof the next multi-year agreement or extension agreement. The idea is to set up a processso this sort of miscommunication with the ASC doesn=t happen again in the future.

Before taking questions Prof. Hlawitschka made some general comments about the MOU revision and extension agreement. He said it includes excellent economic terms that are far better than what we had. The process works, collegial discussions work. Change in the executive VP=s office led to an improvement in communication with the administration, and we left our discussions in a good place.

While summarizing the path that led to the recent disagreement with the ASC, Prof. Hlawitschka recalled that at the last faculty meeting someone suggested bad faith on the side of the administration. He did not think that was true, rather it was just a case of negotiators sitting on opposite sides of the table trying to do the best for the University. In reaching an agreement on "restoration" in last year's MOU, the ASC probably made a mistake tying restoration to revenues and not expenses. It ended up that revenues were much better than expected and expenses were much worse than expected. Indeed, the university probably had an additional $25 million in costs due to Covid over a two-year period. The faculty sacrifice of 5.5% of retirement match contributed about $1.3mm towards those costs.


Prof. Hlawitschka said that the university has pulled through the Covid-19 crisis hats off to the faculty, and hats off to the administration that left us with two budgets with surpluses. We disagree with how they did it, but they did it and that is worth recognition.

Prof. Hlawitschka continued that one of the things he is most proud about is how the university handled requests for individual accommodations throughout the pandemic. If someone felt the need for and requested an accommodation, it was granted with no questions asked.

Prof. Hlawitschka concluded by saying that if someone had suggested that his salary would be restored and it would be higher than it was before the pandemic, he would have said that it was highly improbable, but that is the position this MOU revision and extension puts us in.

At this point Prof. Bhattacharya asked if there were any questions.

Prof. Paul Caster wondered about the 3% increase to our salary that Prof. Hlawitschka mentioned. Prof. Caster said on page 2 of the agreement item 2.c. it says the salary budget will be 2.25%, so where does the 3% come from. Prof. Hlawitschka replied that the 3% came from adding the 2.25% lump sum merit budget payment with the .75% lump sum supplemental budget payment. He also noted that Prof. Michael Puleo is working on a spreadsheet so any faculty can do the salary calculations.

Prof. Irene Mulvey stated that she will still vote in favor, but she has two informational questions. First, did the administration get any money from the government Covid relief packages? Prof. Hlawitschka replied that they did. Prof. Mulvey said doesn=t that bring down the $25 million in expenses, and how much did they get? Prof. Hlawitschka said he wasn=t sure how much they received. Second, Prof. Mulvey asked about the legal reviewBis that something we are going to do jointly with the administration team? If so, why can=t we just ask the FWC attorney? If it is joint, then what does the word >independent= modify? Prof. Hlawitschka replied that FWC dues are essential and we always have an attorney review our MOU, however, we now have this process that we can go to a attorney with a third party lawyer and the ASC. It might save us money, but if nothing else it will require the administration to have a third party review.

Prof. Joan Weiss stated that she was trying to figure out the lump sum. Should she use the mean? Which mean? Prof. Hlawitschka said that restoration means are on one page, and the means for future salary are on the next page. Prof. Weiss replied that is what she thought, but in the FSC memo of July 2nd sent with the packet it looks as if you have the wrong dateBthere it says FY21, but shouldn=t that be FY22? Prof. Hlawitschka said yesBuse the numbers on the MOU, and he will check the July 2nd memo. Prof. Weiss said there is no mention of 95th percentile in the supplemental budget, but isn=t that the purpose of the supplemental budget? Prof. Hlawitschka replied that we think with the supplemental budget we will be clearly above the 95th percentile and approximately 4% increases in base salary for the next year or two. Prof. Weiss asked whether Prof. Hlawitschka could tell us anything about the recommended changes and cost savings measures (mentioned in item 5.g. in the agreement) that the health care committee (HCC) would bring to the FSC. Prof. Hlawitschka replied that the HCC has reviewed three proposals that have been presented to them with projected savings of about $400k. But these proposals will cause some inconvenience and expense for some faculty. The FSC has not


yet reviewed these proposals and is not ready to bring them forward yet. As part of the MOU, the FSC agreed to bring these proposals to the GF for a vote up or down by the end of the Fall semester. Prof. Weiss asked whether Prof. Hlawitschka could explain how Athe University would benefit from further clarification, modification, and extension of the underlying MOU and Modification for one additional year@ as stated in the final whereas clause. In response, Prof. Hlawitschka said that the proposed MOU modifies how restoration will be determined and clarifies a disagreement over this issue between the FSC and the ASC. The extension of the MOU helped bring the two sides to a mutually agreeable modification of the MOU that the FSC now presents for ratification by the GF.

Prof. Elizabeth Hohl stated that she appreciated the use of the language of sacrifice for full-time faculty, but she said she didn=t see any change for part time faculty. Prof. Hlawitschka said there is no change but the FSC did attempt to improve things for part-time faculty, but they failed to make progress. He added that in the next MOU they maybe need to make it a priority. Prof. Hlawitschka added that lots of part-time teaching is due to full-timers teaching overloads. Prof Hohl mentioned that in 2015 the FSC was able to negotiate an increase, but the thing is that these are flat figures and they don=t reflect the experience of the people who do this for a living. Prof. Hohl stated that this is problematic for our entire mission. The ability to negotiate for part-time faculty seems to have been commandeered by the administration, and this is problematic for our being one faculty. Finally, Prof. Hohl wondered whether the phrase AHigher payments are occasionally made as market conditions dictate@ in the MOU is just a way of saying that higher payments are only for those part-timers outside of CAS. Prof. Hlawitschka replied that there is merit to everything you said, and I think the full-time faculty would support making this a priority for next timeBthis was a revision not a new MOU. Prof. Hohl suggested that it might be worthwhile for the FSC to have at least one meeting with the Non-Tenure Track committee. We need to make sure part-time faculty are fully part of the negotiations. Prof. Hlawitschka stated that part-time faculty are people and our colleagues and the whole team is better off if everyone is better off.

Prof. Mulvey wanted to follow up on Prof. Hohl=s point, and she said that part-time faculty could form their own union and negotiate for better salaries, and she would encourage them to do it. She continued that it used to be that the rate for part-time faculty would go up by the same percent as the raise for full-time faculty. When the administration stopped doing this, we gave up part of our raise and then we had two scales in the MOU until the administration refused to continue this practice. Prof. Hohl=s point is good, and the full-time faculty can make a motion that part-time faculty should be a priority for next year.

Motion [Hlawitschka/Puleo] To approve the FY 2021-22 MOU Modification and Extension Agreement:

Prof. David Crawford said that while Prof. Hlawitschka was more diplomatic than he was, he spoke in favor of the motion, and the heroic efforts that went into getting the agreement done.

Motion Passes 114-0-0.


Prof. Hlawitschka thanked Prof. Crawford and the FWC, Prof. Susan Rakowitz, the FSC and all those people who worked so hard to get this agreement.

Prof. John Thiel said that he'd like to note for the minutes the extraordinary work of Walter Hlawitschka as Chair of the Salary Committee this year. The junior members of the faculty might not know that Walter has served on the Salary Committee many times in the last 25 years, developing a remarkable expertise in our governance system that worked to our shared benefit in this crisis year. In our discussions with the administration he is a paradigm of reason and fairness. In discouraging moments he never despairs. He is tireless in defending faculty interests. It was his imagination that led us to the settlement that we just approved, and it is to Walter especially that we owe our gratitude.

Motion [Mulvey/McSweeney]: The general faculty directs the 2021-22 FSC to prioritize compensation for faculty teaching part-time.

Motion Passes 103-0-0.

3. Consideration of the Public Health Advisory Team=s recommendations regarding Covid-19vaccination policy (attachment).

Prof. Shelley Phelan thanked the other faculty representatives on PHAT (Profs. Kim Doughty, Jen Schindler-Ruwisch, and Diana Mager), and she said that Prof. Doughty is more organized, but is travelling. She also thanked the administrative members of PHAT (Julia Duffy, Amy Boczer, VP Karen Donoghue, and Provost Christine Siegel).

Prof. Phelan reminded us that PHAT is an advisory panel made up of the University=s faculty, staff and administrators who possess significant public health experience and expertise. The group is charged with responding to specific questions raised by other members or teams of the COVID-19 Task Force, advising the University=s Senior Leadership on policy questions concerning Public Health and resolving conflicts in the guidance provided by the CDC, DPH and the State Higher Education Task Force. PHAT=s job is not to set or approve policy serving in advisory role.

Prof. Phelan mentioned that since April 9th PHAT has met over 13 times. Today=s presentation focuses on vaccine policy, but some other issues are included in the memo distributed with the packet, and other meeting minutes are posted with AC. Prof. Phelan noted that PHAT has made its vaccination policy recommendations with the goal of achieving the highest possible rate.

Prof. Phelan reported that on April 7th PHAT recommended a mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy for the upcoming academic year, with standard medical and religious exemptions, contingent upon approval by legal counsel. On April 13th PHAT recommended the adoption of a mandatory vaccination policy for all students who would be residing on campus in the summer, given the limited capacity of the Health Center during this time. This recommendation was implemented and is still in place. On April 28th PHAT Reaffirmed its recommendation to require that all students attending classes on campus be vaccinated against Covid-19. (A mandatory vaccination policy that applies to residential students only would be preferable to a policy that relies entirely on voluntary action.) Prof. Phelan noted that this reaffirmation was in line with the


recommendations from the American Colleges Health Association, policies enacted by other universities, and the available social science data.

Prof. Phelan stated that in the absence of a vaccine mandate, PHAT made three recommendations in June, and all three were adopted. PHAT recommended that the university use strong, emphatic language to communicate its position on vaccination to the campus community. PHAT suggested the university Astrongly urge@ students and employees to get vaccinated.@ PHAT recommended that the university require all students and employees to declare their vaccination status by mid-summer (July 13 for employees and July 15 for students). Finally PHAT recommended that the university maintain indoor mask mandate and restrictions on large gatherings until at least 85% of the campus population is vaccinated. Continue to advise unvaccinated students to wear masks. This recommendation was adopted through summer.

Prof. Phelan noted that with or without a vaccine mandate, there will be unvaccinated students and employees on campus. In light of this, PHAT=s ongoing discussions concern two main questions: The first question is what restrictions will unvaccinated individuals be subject to on campus? Will they be required to continue mask-wearing, at least once per week testing, quarantine and isolation, no remote option for classes, or possible restriction from specific high risk events or locations. The second question is what safety measures should we maintain in the classroom and other locations on campus?

At this point the floor was opened to questions, and Prof. Kraig Steffen said that to me it is a no brainer, but could you give me some examples of what the administration is saying? Prof. Phelan said they have received most information from Provost Siegel, so she would like to turn it over to her. Provost Siegel said that Prof. Steffen was not the only one who asks that question. She continued that there is not one overarching reason we are going with the multi-pronged approach rather than a vaccine mandate. The evidence we have about the effectiveness of vaccine mandates does not come from data about the emergency use vaccine. She continued that the administration is trying to get a high vaccination rate without getting caught up in debates about mandates. With other vaccines they are fully approved and have state mandates. There is no state or federal mandate in this case. The White House has issued a university challenge that does not include a vaccine mandate. Provost Siegel continued to say that absent a state requirement, the university is going with the federal guidelines and since it is emergency use only there are legal liabilities. Provost Siegel said the university doesn=t know what would happen if we go to court (and we try not to go to court which is a big defense and is expensive). Provost Siegel recognized that there are many institutions with vaccine mandate policies, but they don=t have the back end to deal with a mandate, the processes for removing students, or with legal challenges. Provost Siegel concluded by saying that iIt feels inauthentic to put out a mandate that we know we cannot uphold. We reserve the right to have a mandate in the future, but, at this time, we are going with this multi-pronged approach to getting high vaccination rates.

Prof. Nicole Fletcher said she was concerned about there being no remote option for students? She is concerned that this will encourage students to come to class sick, but it is important for students to be able to stay home when sick. She thinks we should reconsider this policy. Prof. Phelan said this is beyond the scope of PHAT, but we all heard about the difficulty of hyflex teaching. Does having no remote option pose difficulties, yes, but this has been true with things


like the flu in the past. The no remote option is largely based on the difficulties of the hyflex model, but it is still being discussed. Provost Siegel said that there is still a lot under discussion, and September 8th when classes start is a long way away. At this point Provost Siegel announced two summer Town Hall meetings (on Thursday, July 22, and Wednesday August 18th) at which this and other issues could be discussed further.

Prof. Bob Epstein was concerned about the nature of teaching in fall, and wondered why PHAT does not recommend masking or social distancing for those vaccinated. Prof. Phelan said that really depends on the entire campus vaccination rate, if we are high then that would fall under state recommended level. Prof. Phelan added that the consistent message from the administration is that we can move forward with standard non-covid distancing. If we reach our target vaccination rate, the question comes to masking not social distancing.

Prof. Alison Kris asked whether there has been any discussion about separate requirements for nursing students. We put them in difficult situations, and I would encourage the PHAT to consider this. Prof. Phelan said that they have been talking about a mandate relative to the entire university, but now there are discussions about whether there should be specific requirements for specific cohorts. Prof. Mager added that the CT hospital association is meeting to discuss this very issue, and maybe they would decide as a whole rather than letting universities decide on their own.

Prof. Betsy Bowen asked what happens if employees fail to submit their status. Prof Phelan replied that HR will reach out, and for students, health services will reach out. Prof. Bowen then asked since that 85 percent target is our goal for normal teaching, when will faculty be informed about these results. Prof. Phelan said they will probably be able to give an estimate the week after next, they don=t think that number is an unmoveable number, and then the efforts will have to kick in.

Prof. Aaron Weinstein said that in spring he submitted proof to HR, and he wanted to know whether he will be asked to submit proof again. Prof. Phelan said no. Prof. Weinstein then asked, given that some students will not be vaccinated, how do we then police that and make sure that the students not wearing masks are vaccinated? Prof. Phelan said that based on HIPPA, we recognize that attempting to enforce a mask policy would be very difficult.

Prof. David Schmidt said that having a remote option for students in fall would make teaching difficult particularly for part-timers. Since most of the courses in Applied Ethics are taught by adjuncts, he is worried that if there is a remote option, some of his adjuncts may not return.

Prof. Paul Lakeland stated that 23 of the 27 Jesuit schools have gone with a vaccine mandate, and if you look at the list, it is the weaker schools that haven=t. Prof. Lakeland then said he is concerned about the effects on the campus environment in general. If the university is to get back to normal, and we do not have a vaccine mandate we will be limited in the public events we can have. Furthermore, he stated that he found the Provost=s argument that there is a long time between now and September 8th to be unconvincing. If we were to have a vaccine mandate, we would have to have that soonBwe do not have much time at all, which may be fine for senior administrators who are holding out against a vaccine mandate. I=m impressed by Pope Francis= position that getting a vaccine is a moral mandate. It is inadequate to say that there is discussion among administrators about this or that. Senior leadership can argue amongst


themselves, but they should go along with the advice of the experts and what vast majority of what the university community wants. Prof. Phelan responded that PHAT would agree with that.

Prof. Mary Ann Carolan asked is the consideration that we don=t want to force people to get vaccinatedBhas there been any input from students? Are there students who say they won=t come back to Fairfield if we have a mandate? Prof. Phelan replied that she didn=t think Institutional Research has asked that question. In the surveys that have been sent out, the research has consistently shown that about 5% of students say they won=t get the vaccine. But this is survey data and only a small percent of students have responded to the surveys.

Prof. Sebastián Perez asked whether PHAT has thought about whether the option to teach remotely would be available for faculty? Prof. Phelan replied that we have not talked about that option yet. We are waiting on the vaccination numbers, but mask mandates for all students are not off the table. Still, there may be faculty who will need a remote teaching option. Provost Siegel added that with or without a vaccine mandate, there will be a percentage of students who are not vaccinated. All the administration=s energy is on getting as many as possible vaccinated. Specifically for faculty who cannot get vaccinated, the university would work with them on a on a case by case basis for accommodations. Provost Siegel stated that she is committed to supporting faculty. She also added that appreciated Prof. Hlawitschka=s comments earlier about how generous the university was with accommodations this past year, but she added that the accommodation process may be more rigorous this year than last. Finally, Provost Siegel noted that full-time faculty have already surpassed 85% threshold.

Seeing no more questions Chair Bhattacharya called on Prof. Dennis Keenan who asked to share his screen to display the following motion:

MOTION [Keenan/Johnson]:

Early in the pandemic the administration formed campus experts and stakeholders into the PHAT team to advise us on issues related to Covid 19. After much research and due consideration, the PHAT group produced a recommendation for a student vaccine mandate for fall of 2021; the Academic Council voted to affirm support for this mandate.

Whereas we are a "modern" university, we should follow the advice of our appointed experts.

Whereas we are a "Jesuit" university, we would do well to emulate our sister institutions, including those nearest to us, including Georgetown, Boston College, and Fordham, all of whom announced vaccine mandates as far back as April.

And whereas as we are a Catholic institution, we ought to attend carefully to the wisdom of the Pope, who called Covid 19 vaccination a "moral obligation."


We at Fairfield have thus far ignored these diverse imperatives, and so now the General Faculty asks President Mark Nemec to demonstrate leadership and institute a vaccine mandate on our campus. It is the modern, Jesuit, and Catholic thing to do.

Prof. Mager said she would go out on a limb and speak against the motion. She said she is fully vaccinated, and she wants everyone vaccinated, but she is am a little concerned about the effects of the vaccineBin particular with the reported side effect of myocarditis in young men. If we have a mandate, and if you were the parent of one of those kids, how would you react? For that reason, she is not in favor of a mandate.

Prof. Marti LoMonaco replied that the percentage of those men is small and the risk of their suffering from Covid-19 is the greater risk, so for a modern Jesuit catholic university and our great tenets of social justice, she supports Prof. Keenan=s eloquent motion.

Prof. Anita Fernandez spoke in favor of the motion saying that there are risks but the cost benefits are overwhelming in favor. By having a mandate, we will move the needle in the direction we want to go.

Prof. Hohl wanted to be clear that the intent in the motion is that exceptions will be honored. Prof. Keenan replied that was the intention of the motion.

Provost Siegel asked to whom does the mandate apply, students, staff, faculty? Prof. Keenan replied that the intention of the motion is that the mandate apply to everybody.

Prof. David Crawford, spoke in favor of the motion and noted that the first part of the motion suggests that we defer to the experts of PHAT. He then added that if we are going to convene experts, but then ignore their advice, that would be silly.

Prof. Dawn Massey made the following motion:

Motion [Massey/Fletcher]: That this vote be conducted by secret ballot.

Motion passes 51-23-6

With some friendly prompting from Prof. Johnson, GFS Steven Bayne noted that in advance of the meeting he had prepared an anonymous Zoom poll that could be used for this purpose.

Prof. Keenan reread the motion, and polling began.

Motion passes 97-10-9.

Motion [Caster/Bowen]: To Adjourn.

Motion was uncontested.

Meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Prof. Steven M. Bayne Secretary of the General Faculty



General Faculty MeetingFriday, September 17, 2021

3:30-5:00 p.m. Oak Room and ZoomDraft Minutes of Meeting

These Minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

A proxy at this meeting was held by Tiffany Wilgar for Nadia Zamin.

Faculty Chair for 2021-2022, Professor Olivia Harriott called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m.

Prof. Harriott welcomed everyone back, said she was happy to serve as faculty chair (this was received byenthusiastic applause), and she reminded everyone that our last in-person general faculty meeting was onNovember 15, 2019 (this was also received by enthusiastic applause).

1. Announcements

Prof. Harriott invited Prof. Katya Bardos to read a remembrance for a remembrance written by GregoryKoutmos for Professor Emeritus of Finance, Bharat Bhushan Bhalla who died on August 17 at 92 years old.

Prof. Bardos read in remembrance of Dr. Bharat Bhalla:

It is with great sadness that we are announcing the passing of our beloved colleague Dr. Bharat Bhalla. Bharatjoined the Dolan School of Business in 1987, was tenured in 1993 and he was promoted to full professor in1996. Before joining Fairfield University he had a successful corporate career as a business executive servingas an investment banker for many years in Tokyo. At Fairfield University, he set up a very popularinternational business program and got it accredited as an MBA program. He also served as an associate deanat the DSB.

He was known by his fellow professors as the man who had already walked the talk and the “best dressedon campus”. His optimism and positive attitude was infectious to all those he met. He was a great source ofconfidence and inspiration for both students and colleagues. He saw the best in others and helped themachieve their potential.

Bharat had natural leadership skills and was able to bring people together.

Bharat is survived by his wife, Sushil, his three children, Nirja, Rajiv and Geeta, and seven grandchildren. Wewill miss him dearly.

Secretary of the General Faculty Steven Bayne announced that the approval of minutes would be postponeduntil the October meeting, because we hadn’t set up a way for the Zoom participants to vote at today’smeeting.

Prof. Bayne stalled and said this was awkward moment, because Prof. Susan Rakowitz wasn’t yet at today’smeeting. Professor Bayne said that as this new year began he wanted to take a moment to recognize Prof.Rakowitz’s service as Secretary of the General Faculty over the last nine years. He said that only fully cameto realize just how hard Prof. Rakowitz worked on July 1st (the day he officially took office). He said he wasn’tsure he would be able to be standing there juggling all the pieces if it hadn’t been for Prof. Rakowitz’shelp—her manifesto on being GFS, her almost instantly responding to a million questions, her advice, etc.


He asked the audience to join him in thanking Prof. Rakowitz for her service. This was received withenthusiastic applause, but no Prof. Rakowitz.

2. Introduction of New Faculty

Prof. Harriott introduced Provost Christine Siegel to introduce deans to introduce chairs to introduce newfaculty.

Provost Siegel said that she is thrilled to be able to introduce over forty new faculty members this year. Sheintroduced the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Richard Greenewald:

Dean Greenwald said there were sixteen new faculty joining us in the College this year, and he introducedProf. Shelley Phelan, Chair of the Biology Department.

Prof. Phelan said:

The biology department is very happy to welcome Dr. Scott Weatherbee as our new VAP! Scottreceived his undergraduate degree from SUNY Oswego, and received his PhD from the University ofWisconsin-Madison. Scott’s graduate work focused on developmental genetics - specifically, the studyof wing pattern regulation in insects. He later pursued postdoctoral work at Memorial Sloan Kettering,where he switched to a mouse model system to identify genes that control limb formation and function.Most recently, in his own laboratory at Yale, he continued to work on those newly-identified genes,several of which turned out to be important for cilia formation and function. He is joining ourdepartment to teach courses for our biology majors- including Gen Bio for first years, as well as anupper-level course in Genetics. A fun fact about Scott is that he traveled to Trinidad nine times to doresearch on bats, and a photo from that work hangs in the American Museum of Natural History inNew York. We’re very excited to have Scott on board.

On behalf of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Prof. John Miecznikowski, Chair introducedtwo new faculty:

I’m very happy to introduce our new visiting assistant professor in chemistry & biochemistry, Dr. MaryKhalili. She joined the Department in the Fall 2021 term. Mary received her PhD in Organic Chemistryfrom the University of Connecticut. Before coming to Fairfield, she was a faculty member at theUniversity of New Haven. She has also taught at the University of Connecticut-Hartford campus,Eastern Connecticut State University, and Quinnipiac University. Mary is teaching General ChemistryI lecture and laboratory sections in the Fall 2021 term. Fun facts about Mary are that she likes hiking andgardening so much. She has a 1000 sqft. garden in their back yard where they grow some veggies,herbs, and melons. Welcome Mary!

I’m very happy to introduce our new visiting assistant professor in chemistry & biochemistry, Dr.Olivier Nicaise. He joined the Department in the Spring 2021 term. Olivier received his BS and MSdegrees in Chemistry from Université Pierre et Marie Curie/Paris VI, and completed his first year of theFrench PhD at the Université de Paris-Sud/Paris XI. He ended up receiving his Ph.D. in Chemistry fromthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He was a postdoctoral research associate at theUniversité Catholique de Louvain in Belgium. After finishing his postdoctoral fellowship, he has heldfull-time faculty positions at Hamline University, Alma College, Saint Louis University, SouthernConnecticut State University, and Trinity College, where I met Olivier. In addition, he has held full-timeteaching positions at Darien High School and North Haven High School. He has served as an adjunctprofessor of chemistry at Fairfield University since the summer of 2015. Olivier is teaching GeneralChemistry I lecture and laboratory sections and Molecules of Life in the Fall 2021 term. He is workingon a laboratory research project with me and five students this semester. He is involved in the


Chemistry Olympiad for high school students in the New Haven Section of the American ChemicalSociety. Olivier is a volunteer in the Hamden Boy Scout Troop and for Habitat of Humanity. Fun fact:When he eats an apple or a pear, Olivier eats everything! And that’s why, some years ago, some of hisresearch students asked his wife if he always does that! Welcome Olivier!

On behalf of the Department of English, Prof. Sonya Huber introduced the department’s new VisitingAssistant Professor:

Rachel Heffner-Burns has a BA in Theater & Creative Writing from Hamilton College, an MA inEnglish from Brooklyn College, and her PhD from Lehigh University. Her scholarship focuses primarilyon religious influence in American poetry of the nineteenth century and modernist periods, withparticular attention given to how theology and religious practice have impacted the verse of secular,social justice-focused poets. She’s also been designing and teaching introductory composition andrhetoric classes and literature and film courses for over a decade now (at both universities andcommunity colleges). The two cats in her household are excellently named: Tina Fey Heffner-Burns andAmy Poehler Heffner-Burns.

Prof. Patricia Behre, Chair of the Department of History introduced one new Visiting Assistant Professor:

It is my real pleasure to introduce to you today Dr. Nicholas Rutter. Dr. Rutter has been a part-timeinstructor for us in the History Department for more than 5 years, but I am happy to formally introducehim to you this year as a full-time Visiting Assistant Professor. A specialist in Modern Germany, theSoviet Union, and the Global Cold War, Nick has his undergraduate degree from Brown University andhis M.A. and Ph.D. from Yale University. His research has centered on Socialism, World Youthmovements and the post-war USSR. His publications include chapter-length essays on “The SocialistScramble for Africa 1960-70" and “The Iron Curtain Recast.” Nick has taught several courses for us,including his independently designed introductory course on Utopian Ideas and Practice Since 1500. Hedesigned this course pre-pandemic, showing himself to be prescient enough to realize that having ourstudents and us consider the world as it might be would help us cultivate the fortitude to deal with theworld as it is. Nick also put his covid years to good use outside of the classroom, obtaining a graduatecertificate in Digital Public Humanities from George Mason University’s center for new media studies.So unlike many of the rest of us, he actually has some training in the platforms we have all been forcedto migrate to. His final project, hosted by the Library of Congress, was titled, “Veteran Storytellers: Anoral history of Native American service in the Armed Forces from 1945 to 2020.” Fun facts: Nick is amember of a motorcycle club and a hen co-op. I think I have read that correctly, WITH the hyphen, andthat he indeed meant a hen co-op (and not a coop). Please join me in welcoming formally to Fairfield,Dr. Nicholas Rutter.

Prof. Laura McSweeney introduced the Department of Mathematics’ new Visiting Instructor PatriciaCunningham:

Patricia Cunningham received her BS in applied math and economics at Brown University, then wenton to receive her JD degree at Harvard and her LLM in Taxation at New York University of Law. Sheworked for many years as an attorney and tax associate in New York before returning to school to earnher Master’s in Mathematics here at Fairfield University. She helped found and, for over fifteen years,has been on the board of directors and served in many different leadership and legal roles for the TinyMiracles Foundation, a nonprofit assisting families of severely premature babies born in Fairfield County.She has served as an adjunct professor for the our department for many years, and is now joining us asVisiting Assistant Professor. Please join me in warmly welcoming Patty.


Prof. Joel Goldfield introduced two new colleagues in the Department of Modern Languages and Literature:

Dr. Carolina Añon Suarez recently received her doctoral degree from the University of Minnesotain Hispanic and Lusophone Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics. Her dissertation focuses on memoryand postmemory narratives of the postdictatorship generation in Argentina, exploring the labors ofmemory from the lens of the childhood aesthetic. Carolina’s research interests besides Memory Studiesare the Medical Humanities, Human Rights, Film Studies, and Gender Studies. She enjoys swimming andballet, but her friends think that she did all the most stressful things of life at once: having a baby,defending her dissertation, getting a full-time job, and moving. Please welcome Visiting AssistantProfessor Dr. Carolina Añón Suárez.

Dr. Viviana Rigo de Alonso earned her Ph.D. in Hispanic Studies at McGill University in Montreal. Herinterest in a deeper understanding of women’s writing in Hispanic-American countries led her toexplore the topic of women’s self-representation and identity in literature for her dissertation, whichanalyzed the autobiographies written by Argentinean women writers of the second half of the twentiethcentury. Along with a strong interest in language acquisition research, she has extensive experience asa language instructor both in the United States and Canada, and she has often been part of the FairfieldUniversity community as an Adjunct Professor of Spanish since 2012. This year, Viviana is happy andhonored to be joining the Department of the Modern Languages and Literatures full-time, as anAssistant Professor of the Practice. She enjoys exotic foods and is looking forward to this meeting’sreception. Please welcome Dr. Viviana Rigo de Alonso.

On behalf of the Department of Philosophy, Prof. Ryan Drake welcomed two new Visiting AssistantProfessors:

Dr. Aaron Bentley brings to Fairfield specializations in Philosophy of Law, Applied Political Philosophy,and Philosophy of Social Science. He also has extensive teaching experience in these areas, and has helda CUNY grad center fellowship, served as a New York State Senate fellow, and been the recipient ofan award for distinguished achievement. Aaron is looking forward to contributing to the Magis core, theHonors College, and the pre-law and public policy programs.

Dr. Kristin Culbertson comes to us with specializations in Buddhist Philosophy, Ethics, ClassicalChinese Philosophy, and Environmental Philosophy, and with extensive teaching experience in theseareas as well as in teaching philosophy to non-majors. She has received multiple commendations forteaching excellence from her graduate program at the University of Connecticut, and is eager tocontribute to the Magis core curriculum (in fact, has already submitted applications for the SJ and WACsignature elements!), the Honors College, and the Asian Studies Program.

On behalf of the Politics Department, Gwen Alphonso introduced two colleagues:

The Department of Politics is thrilled to the welcome the following two faculty members, one, Dr. Tiky,is a new VAP in Comparative Politics and the other, Dr. Weinstein’s position has been converted fromVisiting to tenure-track Asst Prof. of Political Theory.

Lembe Tiky, Ph.D is the new Visiting Assistant Professor at Fairfield University, and is also ResearchAssociate at the John Goodwin Tower Center for Political Studies, Southern Methodist University. Dr.Tiky received his BA from the University of Yaoundé in Cameroon, his MA from the AmericanUniversity in Washington, DC, and his PhD from the University of Texas at Dallas. His researchinterests are both in international relations and comparative politics and include topics such asdemocratization, development, human rights, and African security issues and foreign relations. His latestwork: The Six Plagues of Cameroon and their Impact on the Country’s Economic Development [Englishtranslation] (2017), was published by Dianoia, an academic press in France. His forthcoming work:Guest Editor for a forthcoming (October 2021) special Issue of Africa Spectrum on African Agency in


International Politics. His work in progress: Handbook for Global South Agency in International Politics(most likely by OUP). As Director of Academic Development of the International Studies Association(ISA), Dr. Tiky has served the discipline of international studies for many years, organizing local andinternational conferences and workshops for IR scholars. In 2019, he was co-program chair of the firstInternational Studies Association’s (ISA) conference in the African continent. Prior to moving to theUnited States, he worked as a journalist and traveled extensively in the continent of Africa to coverpolitical developments for papers in Cameroon and Senegal. Dr. Tiky is a self-described “soccer fanforever.” He says, “if you want to play, just give me a ring.”

Dr. Aaron Q. Weinstein is starting his fourth year at Fairfield. For the last three he was a visitingassistant professor, but returns this semester in a tenure track line. He grew up in New Hampshire,attended Cornell University for undergrad and Brown University for his Ph.D. Aaron researches in theareas of American political thought and religion and politics, and will be teaching classes in politicaltheory and American political thought. Besides writing and teaching, he loves to run and to bake (read:it’s a good thing he likes to run). He’s also a die-hard Pats fan, and tries to spend as much of Sundayswatching football as humanly possible

Welcome to our two wonderful additions to the Politics Department.

Linda Henkel, Chair of the Psychology Department introduced their new visiting assistant professor:

Emily Hangen got her Ph.D. in Social-Personality Psychology at the University of Rochester in 2019,her Masters degree there as well in 2016, and her B.A. in psychology from the University of Chicagoin 2013. Her research examines how social influences affect students’ approach and avoidancemotivation, their mental health, and academic their achievement. She explores motivational processesto inform instructional practices and to develop interventions that optimize student outcomes. Herareas of interest include stress reappraisal, shifts in performance goal adoption, motivation duringcompetition, and the adverse effects of positive stereotypes and high expectations Her work reachesa wide audience because it has applied value and is grounded in theory. She has published 14peer-reviewed articles and book chapters in journals such as Journal of Personality; Motivation &Emotion; and Educational Psychology. Teaching is a central focus for Emily that is intertwined with herresearch. She is teaching courses in General Psych, Social Psychology, and Statistics for the BehavioralSciences this Fall. And she comes to us well prepared, having taught courses through Harvard ExtensionSchool and as a College Fellow in the psychology department at Harvard. She held aTeaching-as-Research Fellowship while earning her PhD at University of Rochester, and was a NationalScience Foundation Graduate Research Fellow as well, and has won teaching awards at every place shehas been so far! Fun facts: She is a new mom -- she has a 5-month old named Arthur, and she loves trailrunning, and eating cookie dough.

Martin Nguyen introduced two new faculty for the Department of Religious Studies:

Our new Visiting Assistant Professor of Religious Ethics, Xavier Montecel is scholar of Christiantheological ethics, whose work focuses on the intersection of liturgy and the moral life. He is completinghis doctoral work at Boston College, where he is writing a dissertation that explores the implicationsof Eucharistic theology and virtue theory for the field of liturgy and ethics. Xavier is a Latino scholar anda native of San Antonio, TX. He is the product of a Jesuit education. He lives in Southeastern MA withhis husband Ryan, two dogs, and a flock of chickens.

Our new tenure track Assistant Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Thomas Schmidtcomes to Fairfield from Yale University’s PhD program in Ancient Christianity. He has broad intereststhat touch upon the historical Jesus, the formation of the New Testament, Christian eschatologicalthought, and the history of Christianity in Syriac and Arabic contexts. His books have been published


with Fordham University Press, Gorgias Press, and Catholic University of America and include studiesand translations on Christian eschatological themes.

Rachelle Brunn-Bevel introduced two new colleagues in Sociology and Anthropology:

We are pleased to welcome two new Visiting Assistant Professors of Anthropology. The first, SarahPoniros is currently teaching, but she plans to join us at the reception so please welcome her there.Sarah Poniros is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology. She just defended herdissertation in July. Her Ph.D. is in Biological Anthropology and Archaeology from the University ofSheffield in England. Her research interests include skeletal variation and diversity in archaeologicalpopulations, as well as health and disease in archaeological populations. She is from Stratford, CT. Shewent to England for graduate study and is happy to be back home in CT. Her fun fact is that she reallyloves doing jigsaw puzzles. To date she has a done a 1500 piece puzzle.

Sierra Bell was born in a one-room cabin on a hippie commune in the Appalachian mountains (FunFact!). Much later, she earned her PhD in Sociocultural Anthropology from Yale in 2017. Her doctoralresearch was on right-wing grassroots activist communities in America, the role of conspiracy theoriesin those communities, and connections between the recent rise of conspiracy theories and changes inAmerican society and politics related to neoliberalism. She also focuses on other topics, like globalinequality and humanity’s apparent desire to make our planet uninhabitable. Sierra has been teachingat Fairfield on a part time basis for the past several semesters, and is very happy to be here full time.

On behalf of Visual and Performing Arts, Brian Torff introduced their new Visiting Assistant Professor:

The music program and Department of Visual and Performing Arts is delighted to introduce Dr.Michael A. Ciavaglia. Dr. Ciavaglia graduated Summa cum laude from Fairfield University in 2004 witha B.A., in Visual and Performing Arts (Music); He earned a 2006 M.M., in Choral Conducting fromTemple University and a 2013 D.M.A., in Choral Conducting from the University of CincinnatiCollege-Conservatory of Music. Since 2014 Dr. Ciavaglia has been an Adjunct Professor in theDepartment of Visual and Performing Arts, and a Private Instructor in Voice, as well as a guest clinicianand conductor with the University Glee Club and Theatre Fairfield. His professional activities includethe Connecticut Chamber Choir, Chorus preparation for Greater Bridgeport Symphony and, asfeatured in the New York Times, Conductor for the resident chorus at Breaking Ground, New YorkCity’s largest provider of homeless services. Michael has had several professional engagements in chorusand orchestral preparation for the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary (and its surviving members), as wellas for pop/crossover tenor Andrea Bocelli. We enthusiastically welcome Dr. Ciavaglia to the MusicProgram at Fairfield University.

Provost Siegel introduced Dolan School of Business Dean Zhan Li, and he introduced acting AccountingDepartment Chair Joan Lee.

Prof. Joan Lee introduced two new colleagues in the Department of Accounting:

The Department of Accounting is pleased to welcome John Aland as Assistant Professor. He receivedhis PhD from the University of Michigan but is not a U Mich football fan. Perhaps that’s because he’sa “Golden Domer,” he got his undergrad degree from Notre Dame. His areas of scholarship includetraditional and non-traditional financial institutions. John is teaching some of our many sections of introfinancial accounting to first year students so he has to be very patient - which is good because John hasa 4-year old who is at the parenting center on campus (and has been spotted in his office on occasion)and twin 2-year olds.

The Department of Accounting also is pleased to welcome Heather Baiye as an Assistant Professorof the Practice. Heather received her degree from Loyola University Maryland - a good Jesuit school.


She worked at KPMG in auditing and audit training until she left the cruel world behind and joinedFairfield. Heather tells me that she is powered by caffeine and chocolate because she has an 8 week oldand a 2 1/2 year old.

Prof. Kathy Nantz from the Department of Economics introduced two new faculty:

Assistant Professor of the Practice Susan Kibe could not join us this afternoon, as she’s been chosenfor one of 15 Campus Compact Impact Awards, in their Teaching for Prosperity project. And they meetFriday afternoon at this time. Susan attended Fordham University from 2010 - 2017 for her Masters inIPED (International Political and Economic Development) and Doctorate in Economics and attendedthe United States International University for her MBA in Finance. Her research interests includeintrahousehold bargaining empirical studies and the study of resilient market-based methods ofimproving women status as a long-term proactive poverty reduction. She is also keen on thedevelopment and design of innovative higher education teaching methods. Susan is from Nairobi, Kenyaand loves traveling across the country and collecting the US state magnets, with her husband, Sam. Sofar they’ve visited all states apart from 6. She’s looking to get to Hawaii, Alaska, South and NorthDakota, Montana and Oregon in the near future.

Visiting Assistant Professor, John Hill was Educated at Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, Johnfocused on Econometrics in his PhD work and was fortunate to work under the Nobel LaureateLawrence Klein while at Penn. His professional endeavors lead him into industry where he held seniorpositions at several financial firms, and has now transitioned to focus on teaching, writing and investing.His recent books titled Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing (2020) and Fintech and theRemaking of Financial Institutions (2018) were both published by Academic Press. John is married, withthree adult children. He is an avid photographer and scuba diver, holding certifications as a Dive Masterand Assistant Instructor.

Prof Katya Bardos, Chair of the Finance Department introduced:

Nomalia Manna as their new Assistant Professor of the Practice. Nomalia Manna has completed herPh.D. in Finance from Drexel University, Philadelphia. Her overall research interest is in corporatefinance with a focus on Mergers and Acquisitions and Corporate investments in startups. She enjoyteaching a lot and has taught courses like Introduction to Finance and Investment Securities & Markets.Apart from her academic interests, she loves to paint and is trained in Indian classical dance.

Prof. Carl Scheraga introduced four new faculty in the Department of Management:

New Assistant Professor Regina Kim obtained her PhD in Organizational Psychology at ColumbiaUniversity. Her research interests include diversity and inclusion, conflict management, negotiation, andcross-cultural management. In her research, Regina investigates how diversity and cross-culturaldifferences affect the way individuals / groups perceive and manage conflicts in organizations. Hercurrent project examines bias against nonnative accents and how stereotype threat experienced bynonnative speakers influences conflict dynamics between native and nonnative speakers in organizations.Regina has taught extensively at the undergraduate, graduate, and executive levels in the areas oforganizational behavior, human resource management, negotiation and dispute resolution, andcross-cultural management in the United States, France, Italy, and South Korea.

New Assistant Professor Stanislav ‘Stas’ Vavilov holds an MS in ocean science and a BA in publicpolicy, both from the Lomonosov Moscow State University, an MBA from the Yale School ofManagement and a Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB) (2021). His researchinterests are at the intersection of organizational theory, entrepreneurship support, and global socialentrepreneurship, with a particular focus on exploring the formation of the environment supportive ofentrepreneurship. His dissertation builds upon the growing role of social entrepreneurship in the


context of international development and examines how an environment supportive of social venturesin emerging economies is created at local and transnational levels. He has taught courses ManagingOrganizations, Strategic Management, and Global Business. He is very passionate about sustainabilityissues. Over the last decade, he has had a chance to collaborate with multiple sustainability-focusedthink tanks and centers, including the Yale Center for Business and the Environment, The Center forGovernance and Sustainability, and he MIT D-Lab.

New Assistant Professor of the Practice Chris Hamer joins us with over 30 years of industryexperience having held senior management roles in marketing, advertising, entertainment, andtechnology working with companies ranging from Fortune 50 to start-up. He holds a B.B.A. Marketingand Finance from the University of Texas at Austin and an MS from The State University of New Yorkat Albany. After leading online marketing at priceline.com, Chris joined General Motor’s OnStar asMarketing Director in 2001. With the OnStar success at General Motors, Chris was appointedMarketing Director at Cadillac in 2003. Hamer then was appointed SVP Strategic Marketing atSONY/BMG Music where he was responsible for strategic partnerships for all SONY/BMG Music artists.In 2012, Hamer founded CrowdFlik to revolutionize mobile video by making it easy to synchronize,organize and re-stitch shared mobile video into new edits. With 15 issued patents and significant marketaccolades CrowdFlik moved to an enterprise model and is currently in acquisition talks with severalmajor strategic players. A fun fact about Chris is that he drives a Honda with over 300,000 miles on it.

New Visiting Assistant Professor Carlos Peña has been an attorney for 37 years and holds a J.D. fromDuke University School of Law School. Highlights of his career include serving as corporate counsel withincreasing levels of responsibility at PepsiCo, Inc., Young & Rubicam, Inc., First Brands Corporation,Brink’s Incorporated, and as Chief Counsel of Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated. Most recently, he hasserved as Managing Member of Marcane LLC, a business consultancy, and authored the self-help bookentitled, Breathless Days and Sleepless Nights. He has broad experience in managing corporate legalaffairs, creating strategic direction, mentoring and managing staff, compliance training on a multitudeof subjects, and counseling at all levels. Dr. Peña was a member of Campbell Soup Diversity andInclusion Leadership Council and has spoken and trained corporate staff extensively on diversity, equityand inclusion initiatives in the workplace. He also served for several years as the Executive Sponsor ofthe Pepperidge Farm Hispanic Employee Affinity Network, and conducted numerous Spanish 101workshops and other related initiatives during his tenure.

Prof. Mousumi Bose Godbole introduced three new faculty for the Marketing Department:

The Department of Marketing is pleased to welcome Andrew Blum as Professor of the Practice. Hereceived his MBA from Fairfield University. His areas of teaching include Business Communications,Principles of Marketing and other Marketing Electives. One fun fact about Andrew is that he grew upon a street adjacent to campus and he used to play on the fields as a kid.

The Department of Marketing is pleased to welcome LoriBeth (LB) Greenan as Professor of Practice.She received her terminal degree from New York University. Her areas of teaching include CorporateCommunication. One fun fact about “LB” is she appeared on The David Letterman Show in an on-goingsegment the last 3 seasons of the show.

The Department of Marketing is pleased to welcome Bill Natlo as Assistant Professor of the Practice.He received his Masters degree from Long Island University and joins Fairfield with almost 20 years ofindustry experience. His areas of teaching include advertising, media strategy and introductorymarketing. One fun fact about Bill is that as a bartender during graduate school, he once served drinksto Bill and Hillary Clinton! Bill had a club soda and Hillary a glass of Chardonnay.

On behalf of the Department of Analytics, Chair Yasin Ozcelik, introduced their new Associate Professor:


The Department of Analytics is pleased to welcome Philip Maymin as Associate Professor of Analytics.He joined our department as a Professor of Practice in 2019 and he has been serving as the Directorof our MSBA (Master of Science in Business Analytics) program. We have recently converted hisposition to full time and tenure track because we cannot afford losing him! He received his Ph.D inFinance from University of Chicago in 2007. His main areas of research include Algorithmic Finance andSport Analytics. He teaches courses in Business Analytics, Sports Analytics and Artificial Intelligence. Funfact about Phil: He is a lawyer and a rabbi who married both of his younger brothers. Please welcomePhilip Maymin to Fairfield University.

Provost Siegel introduced Dean Meredith Kazer of the Egan School of Nursing and Health Studies, who saidshe was thrilled to welcome four new colleagues. She then introduced Associate Dean Audrey Beauvais.

Prof. Beauvais introduced two new faculty:

Erin Fusco, DNP, RN, OCN, FNP-BC, Assistant Professor of the Practice completed her DNP atStony Brook University. She joins us from a recent faculty position as an Assistant Professor atQuinnipiac University. Her clinical research interests focus on oncology, leveraging technology in patientcare, and care access for underserved populations. She is from a family of nurses-her mother, threesisters, and two nieces. Her grandmother was a midwife in Ireland credited for safely deliveringthousands of babies in her ten year career. Erin is married with two daughters. She loves to run, andalways finishes, but content to be in competition as the slowest runner ever!

Janice Holmes, MSN, APRN, PMHCNS-BC, CHSE, Visiting Instructor completed her Master ofScience and Bachelor of Science in Nursing Degrees from Fairfield’s Egan School. As aPsychiatric-Mental Health Clinical Nurse Specialist and Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, her clinicaland scholarly interests include management of development disorders and acute psychiatric crises. Priorto joining Fairfield as a full-time faculty member, Ms. Holmes served as an adjunct for the past six years.In 2021, she was awarded the Undergraduate Adjunct of the Year award for her exceptional instructionof students in clinical and simulation areas.

Associate Dean Joyce Shea also introduced two new faculty:

Lisa Sundean, PhD, MHA, RN, Assistant Professor & Director Masters in Healthcare Administration,completed her PhD from UConn. She is the former Statewide Director for the CT NursingCollaborative-Action Coalition and joins us most recently from her position as an Assistant. Professorat UMass Boston. Her research interests focus on nurse leadership, specifically nurses on boards, healthPolicy, population and public health, and nursing workforce development. She is an avid hiker,snowboarder, reader, gardener, and lover of family time.

Leigh Taylor, DNP, MS, CRNA, Assistant Professor of the Practice and Nurse Anesthesia ClinicalEducation Coordinator recently joined us at Fairfield from Nashville, TN, where she was the AssistantProgram Director at Middle Tennessee School of Anesthesia. She completed her DNP from SamfordUniversity. She was recently published in the June 2020 issue of the American Association of NurseAnesthesia Journal for a protocol to early identify and prevent substance use disorder in CRNAs in theworkplace. She has three young children. In her limited free time enjoys listening to podcasts andreading fiction.

Provost Siegel introduced School of Education and Human Development Associate Dean StephaneyMorrison, who introduced Prof. Rona Preli.

Prof. Rona Preli introduced one new faculty member for the Department of Family Therapy and Social Work:

The Department of Family Therapy and Social Work is pleased to welcome Dr. Yeddi Park as anAssistant Professor in the Masters of Social Work program in the School of Education and Human


Development. Dr. Park received her doctoral degree from the Silver School of Social Work at NYU in2015. She received her MSW from the University of Michigan in 1999 and her Bachelors in Psychologyfrom UConn in 1998. Dr. Park has taught Research Methods and Program and Practice Evaluation atNYU Silver School of Social Work; Nyack College School of Social work and the Graduate School ofCounseling; Fordham University Graduate School Work. Her areas of scholarship include family conflict,self-esteem, coping skills and depressive symptoms among Korean American adolescents,tele-counseling for the linguistically isolated, mental health service utilization among Korean Americansand bullying and discrimination experiences among Korean American adolescents. Dr. Park hasextensive clinical experience as a school social worker and also in private clinical practice. A fun factabout Dr. Park is that she has spent time trekking in the mountains of Chiang Mai, Thailand and livingwith the Karen tribe. She also took a solo trip to South East Asia to explore the culture and people. Shestates that it is among the best things she has ever done.

Provost Siegel introduced the Dean of the School of Engineering Andres Carrano, who introduced the Chairof Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, Prof. Uma Balaji.

Prof. Uma Balaji introduced one new faculty member:

The Department of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering is pleased to welcome Dr. John Drazan asAssistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering. Dr. Drazan received his doctoral degree from RensselaerPolytechnic Institute, in Biomedical Engineering and just completed an NIH postdoctoral Fellowship inthe department of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania. His areas of research includehuman biomechanics, sports performance, orthopedic device design, and informal STEM Education. Funfact: Dr. Drazan will serve as the player-coach for the inaugural School of Engineering IntramuralBasketball team. He cordially invites his colleagues from the other schools and colleges at Fairfield tofield their own teams for some collegial, but competitive, hoops.

Associate Dean Harvey Hoffman introduced two new faculty:

The SOE is pleased to welcome Elif Kongar as the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research.She received her doctoral degree from Northeastern University. Her areas of scholarship includeSocially responsible, environmentally benign and economically feasible manufacturing services, andsustainable operations. One fun fact about Elif is that she shares her birthday with her husband and hertwin-sister. She and her surgeon husband spend all of their money maintaining their 125 year old homein New Haven.

The School of Engineering welcomes Henry Wu as a visiting professor in the Computer Sciencesdepartment. He received his doctoral degree in Electrical Engineering from Oklahoma State University.His areas of scholarship includes cyber security, computer networking, telecommunications, andcomputer architecture. One fun fact about Henry is that he one day he hopes to play chess againstDeep Blue. Henry also acted as my tour guide when we traveled to China.

Faculty Chair Harriott asked everyone to take a brief moment to welcome all of our new colleagues, whichwas received by enthusiastic applause.

3. Remarks by Provost Christine Siegel

Prof. Harriott said it was her pleasure to reintroduce Provost Christine Siegel.

Provost Siegel said she wanted to lend her voice to welcoming the new faculty and to finally seeing everyonein person.

In May 2017, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and co-founder of Facebook, gave the commencement addressat Harvard University. In his address, Zuckerberg told the story of John F Kennedy’s visit to NASA in the early


1960's. As the story goes, President Kennedy encountered a janitor during his visit. When Kennedy asked himwhat he was doing, the janitor replied “Mr. President, I’m helping to put a man on the moon.”

Zuckerberg at Harvard provides an easy and recent reference for this story; a reference situated in auniversity context. Zuckerberg is not, however, the first to tell it. It’s a story that I have heard several times,and that I assume many of you have also heard before.

Whenever I hear the story, I am curious about the janitor and his experience. I wonder not only aboutthe janitor’s encounter with the President of the United States, but more importantly about his work atNASA and how he really felt about it. So, in preparing my address for you today, I went in search of thejanitor. As it turns out, he’s hard to find.

There are multiple versions of the “Kennedy encounters a NASA janitor” story. In some accounts,Kennedy’s visit occurs in 1961, others have him there in 1962. In some tellings, the janitor is holding a mop,in others he has broom. In most accounts, Kennedy comes upon the janitor after “taking a wrong turn” insidethe building, suggesting he was walking alone, unaided or without direction, which for the President of theUnited States seems unlikely.

So, I was somewhat disappointed to realize that the story of Kennedy and the janitor may not be basedon an actual encounter. Others who have come to this conclusion before me now describe the story as amyth or urban legend.

Perhaps they are too harsh, because what we do know is that on July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong took“one giant leap for mankind,” when he became the first person to step foot on the surface of the moon, andthat Presidential historians recognize this event as the fulfillment of a national goal that John F Kennedy laidout in 1961, of “…landing a man on the moon, and returning him safely to earth” before the end of thedecade.

Although there is scant evidence of the proverbial janitor, there is significant evidence that from 1961through 1969, Kennedy and the leaders of NASA, were able to galvanize a massive 1000-plus personorganization, and indeed a nation, around a single clear goal that was achieved.

Not long after Zuckerberg’s speech, in 2018, Andrew M. Carton, Associate Professor of Managementat the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School published a paper in Administrative Science Quarterly.Based on his analysis of 18,000 pages of documents, transcripts, and internal NASA memos, Carton identifiedstages of both “leader sense giving” and “employee connection building” that gave rise to a narrative in which“putting a man on the moon” was at the same time connected to NASA’s aspirations - to improve spacetechnology, achieve preeminence in space for the United States, and advance science - AND connected toemployees’ daily work - building electrical circuits, stitching spacesuits, constructing a launch pad, etc.

The narrative serves as the connective tissue between the work and the aspiration, and the story of thejanitor has become emblematic of the narrative. So, although not an anecdote based in reality, our janitorstory is also not simply myth. We might think of it as a parable - one that allows us first to imagine a scenarioin which one’s daily work could be directly linked to an organization’s aspiration; and then - thanks to AndrewCarton and others like him - to acknowledge that such organizations, not only exist, but they can literallyachieve astronomical outcomes.

As the main character in the parable, the “janitor” in this story has come to mean someone involvedin a part of the mission that is perceived to be small. The beauty of the story as parable is that we come tosee the janitor, by carrying the vision of the institution forward, is its keeper and his work is essential. Indeed,the connection of his daily work to the vision is not only what drives him but drives his colleagues across theranks of the organization. In this way, the parable invites us all to see our daily and the work of those aroundus work as elevated; and to halt the tendency to diminish our own work or the work of others. The wordsof the janitor remind us that not only are we essential to the mission, we are the carriers of its light.

This all, of course, this begs the question, faculty of Fairfield University - what is our narrative? Whatis the connective tissue that provides the straight line between the work you do every day and ourinstitutional aspiration to become a doctoral professional university of national prominence?


Imagine for a moment that you are the hero in the opening story - not Zuckerberg, not the President,not even the astronaut - but the janitor. You are engaged in your daily work, when unexpectedly you aregreeted by a person of national stature who asks with curiosity and interest “What are you doing?” Imaginethat you respond, “I am helping a student to earn a college degree.”

Hold that thought, “I am helping a student to earn a college degree” - pretty good, but not quite parallelto “I am helping to put a man on the moon.”

In his own speech to a university audience, upon accepting an honorary degree at Rice University in1962, Kennedy said “Why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? …. we choose to go to themoon, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills…”

I do not need to tell you that there are some who say to us, “Why a college degree? Why choose thisas your goal?” Like Kennedy, we can respond, “because that goal serves to organize and measure the bestof our energies and skills.”

In 2014, that goal was organized and measured for us. The Lumina foundation partnered with PurdueUniversity on the largest ever study of college graduates in the US. The project, entitled Great Jobs GreatLives, surveyed nearly 30,000 US adults who had completed at least a bachelor’s degree, and found that notonly were college graduates likely to be employed, they also were also likely to be highly engaged in theirworkplace and to experience well-being across multiple aspects of their lives. Researchers concluded that“people’s evaluation of their current lives rise with education; …. with college graduates and those withpost-graduate education giving their lives the highest ratings.”

The Great Jobs, Great Lives project further identified, in what is now called the Gallup-Purdue Index,a set of six supports and experiences encountered by students - in college or during post-graduate education- that contributed most to a great life. Coined “the big six,” these student-experience factors include:• Having at least one professor who made them excited about learning• Having a professor who cared about them as a person• Having a mentor who encouraged them to pursue their goals and dreams• Working on a project that took more than one semester to complete• Having an internship or job that allowed them to apply what they were learning• Being extremely active in extra-curricular activities and organizations

The researchers further found that these six factors contributed more to life-long student outcomesthan did the type, nature or size of the institution they attended, leading them to conclude that it wasn’t theUniversity itself but what happened there that mattered most.

If you place your daily work in this narrative, it is not hard to imagine that when asked, “What are youdoing?” you might respond, “I am helping a student to have a great life.”

Now that sounds like putting a man on the moon. Much like we do today, the 1960's employees of NASA faced uncertain times characterized by political

and social unrest, looming threats from on-going wars, and fierce competition. Yet, they were tireless, united,and ultimately triumphant in their efforts.

Throughout the 18 months, in the context of an on-going global pandemic, you likewise have shownremarkable resilience and talent in our shared work.

You helped students to have a great life, when you • excited their learning passions in classrooms, research labs, and innovation centers.You helped students to have a great life, when you• cared for them as people when they were sick, tired or anxious, in isolation or in quarantine• when you took the time to inquire about their health and the health of their families; to check in

with them before or after classYou helped students to have a great life when you • mentored them toward their goals and dreams while advising them for classes;, helping them to

find internships, or making it possible for them to attend their first research conference.You helped students to have a great life when you


• facilitated their multi-semester projects by helping to secure grant funding, advising their businessplan competition project, inviting them to work in your research labs

You helped students to have a great life when you • helped to them to secure a job or internship by leveraging your network, or writing a letter of

recommendationYou helped students to have a great life when you• advised one of the clubs or organizations that kept them engaged outside the classroom; when

you cheered them on at their sports competitions.What are you doing in your work at Fairfield University? You are helping students to have a

great life. The Great Jobs, Great Lives project, with its identification of the big six, provides a narrative that

connects our daily work to a tangible shared goal, much like the man on the moon narrative organized thework of NASA.

With a man on the moon, however, we are only halfway there. And I don’t mean because we have toreturn him safely back to earth. We have to finish the connection from daily work through shared narrativeto organizational aspiration.

According to Carton, the man on the moon narrative connected the cleaning of floors to theadvancement of science and preeminence in space for the United States. Carton notes, however, that inorder to get from cleaning floors to the advancement of science, in addition to a narrative, a road map wasneeded. For NASA, the roadmap included a series of first unmanned and then manned space explorations,and associated set of technological innovations and fund-raising efforts.

Likewise, at Fairfield University, we need a road map - accompanied by innovation and financialresources - to connect our daily work through our “great lives” narrative to our aspiration of becoming adoctoral professional university of national prominence. As President Nemec outlined in his first-Fridayaddress last week, the path to national prominence is supported by five pillars that will undergird our workin the coming years.

First, we will continue to evolve and innovate our academic programs with continued investmentin and attention to our still new Magis core curriculum, revised Honors program, evolving InternationalStudies and International Business programs, and a number of new majors and minors at the undergraduatelevel. We will leverage our strategic investments around growth in engineering, and communication andmedia studies; as well as new geographic locations and increased on-line teaching and learning modalities.

Second, we will strive to serve as a beacon in the Jesuit Catholic ecosystem. We recentlyannounced an expanded partnership with the Diocese to provide increased pathways to postsecondaryeducation for students from the Bridgeport area. Building on this partnership and the work of last year’sPresident’s Commission on Educational Access, colleagues across campus are collaborating on a proposal fora new academic unit, tentatively named Bellarmine College, that would offer an Associate’s degree followedby pathways to a four-year degree to first-generation students, students who are Pell-eligible, and studentsof color not currently served by Fairfield University.

Third, we will position Fairfield as a destination for arts, culture, and athletics. With new visitorand events policies in place, we are pleased to be able to welcome visitors back to campus this fall for anacademic year of new and exciting exhibits and programming at the Quick Center for the Arts and theFairfield University Art Museum. And we look forward to welcoming the community back to cheer on ourdivision-one athletic teams next fall when we open our new Arena and Convocation Center.

Fourth, we will continue to elevate the student experience. Characterized by a vibrant on-campusliving and learning community for our undergraduates, and meaningful connections with curriculum,professors and fellow students for our graduate students across modalities, the student experience is adefining feature of Fairfield University. In the coming years, we will place even greater emphasis on andinvestment in living and learning environments, collaborative workspaces, and student health and well-beinginitiatives.


Fifth, we will work to advance access to and affordability of a Fairfield education for all students,as we continue to increase our financial aid - which rose to almost $100 million last year alone. Additionally,we have secured a generous commitment from an anonymous donor to provide $100,000 to the AcademicImmersion program this year and for the next four years. This $500,000 total commitment will allow us todouble the number of students impacted by the academic immersion program. Further, the Office ofAdmissions has established a Company Scholars program to provide four-year, full cost scholarships to acohort of 10-12 diverse students from Jesuit and Cristo Rey schools, who will receive wrap around supportsthroughout their time at Fairfield. These initiatives are the tangible efforts of our values-based commitmentto welcoming as diverse a community to Fairfield as possible. Colleagues across campus engaged in this workare coordinated at the University level by the President’s Working Group on Inclusive Excellence.

Evolving and innovating the academic program, serving as a beacon in the Jesuit Catholic ecosystem,positioning Fairfield as a destination for arts, culture and athletics, elevating the student experience, andadvancing access and affordability - five pillars that serve to organize our student-centric work in ways thatadvance the University to national prominence.

Why? Because to paraphrase from President Kennedy at Rice University, that challenge is one we arewilling to accept, unwilling to postpone, and able to achieve.

If we were to write again the NASA janitor’s parable, with the clarity that six decades of hindsight andat least one in depth analytical study provides, it might go something like this.

In the early 1960's during his visit to the NASA space center, President Kennedy encountered a janitorwith mop in hand. With interest, the President asked, “What are you doing?” The janitor replied “I ampositioning the United States for preeminence in space.” With piqued curiosity the President further probed,“How?” The janitor said, “by helping to put a man on the moon.”

I was born two weeks prior to Neil Armstrong’s moon walk. I am told that I was present with otherfamily members in front of the TV to watch as it occurred. As a result, I grew up in a world where going tothe moon was always a possibility; with the understanding that despite political tensions, social upheaval, orthreat of war, when faced with a shared goal of human advancement, people could achieve outer-worldlyaccomplishments. At Fairfield University, I see every day.

What are you doing in your work? Positioning Fairfield University for national prominence. How? byhelping students to have great lives

I trust that perhaps an hour ago - or this morning in a lab or classroom or office - you helped more thanone student toward the greatness that is within their reach. So, I know that today was a day that you liftedFairfield toward its goal of national prominence. And like that janitor on that long hallway, I trust and I knowyou are poised to do it again tomorrow.Thank you.

The meeting was opened to questions for Provost Siegel:

Prof. Paul Baginski said he was very happy to see everyone again in person, and he had a question about theemail the office of accessibility sent out on 9/8/2021. In that email it was mentioned that there were over1200students registered with the office of accessibility. He said he was struck by this number because it is almost25% of the student population. Furthermore in that email we were told that, given the logistics, the officeof accessibility would only be able to accommodate 25 students a day, and that priority will be given tostudents with disabilities who have complex testing accommodations. Above this capacity, we were told thatprofessors should coordinate additional time for other students. What support do we have for doing that?

Provost Siegel replied that 1200 is a large number, but it doesn’t make clear how many are Covid related andhow many are with disabilities. It doesn’t mean all students need testing accommodations; some may needother sorts of accommodations such as special parking passes or eating facilities. We do have theresponsibility to work together to meet our students where there are. If departments feel overburdened,I’d encourage you to work with the dean’s offices and they will work with me to provide support.


Prof. McSweeney asked whether the Covid Dashboard had been updated today and what the numbers were.

With some assistance from President Mark Nemec, Provost Siegel replied that so far we had done 7,000 totalCovid tests and 27 of those tested positive. She said that is a very low percentage, so, so far so good. Sheadded that the dashboards on the Covid-19 Faculty Resource Page would be updated twice a week, whilethe outward facing dashboard would be updated once a week.

Provost Siegel reminded faculty that because of Covid we have been asked to keep seating charts for ourclasses if it is possible and appropriate. This will improve the ability for contact tracing when it is necessary.

Seeing no more questions, as it was now after 5:00 p.m., and former GFS Prof. Susan Rakowitz was nowpresent at the meeting, GFS Bayne again thanked Prof. Rakowitz for her service, and called her to the podiumto accept a chocolate cake as a small token of appreciation.

To prolonged enthusiastic applause, Prof. Rakowitz said it was a pleasure and it is a pleasure not to be doingit any more.

At this time, a motion to adjourn to the Provost’s reception was uncontested.


general faculty meeting friday, october 22, 2021, 3:30-5

Documents