Faculty Council

March 6, 2003

315 GERLACH HALL

3:30-5:30

 

Present: 36

Guests: 1

 

1.                  Announcements

 

Chair Gene Mumy made announcements regarding the Spring Quarter meetings.

 

2.         Arts and Sciences Restructuring

 

Chair Mumy expressed his deep gratitude to the sub-committee on the ASC restructuring for producing two versions of a resolution on the Provost’s January 16th speech. If the Council votes against the proposal, Dr. Mumy added that he hoped that they would also include a list of constructive suggestions on how to proceed. He explained that Version 1 makes reference to an unspecified strategic plan, which has now been published by a committee on the strategic plan, chaired by Dean Ripley from Social and Behavioral Sciences.

 

Professor Dick Gunther made a motion to approve Version 2. He felt that Version 2 was a follow-up to the straw vote of the February 20 Faculty Council meeting and articulates the concerns highlighted at that time. Dr. Gunther noted that while many faculty are not satisfied with status quo, the Provost’s plan contains unsatisfactory options not contained in the Ferrar Report. If the Executive Dean does not hold Vice-Presidential status, a series of questions arise regarding the power and role of the Executive Dean. As Chair of the Fiscal Committee, he related a discussion they had on the timing of this proposal mixed with the new budget processes, and the small role the new Dean would play. He discussed the now minor promotion and tenure role of the Executive Dean, which clarified that the he or she would only be involved inter-disciplinary P&T matters. Dr. Gunther also noted serious concerns regarding the Executive Dean’s role in curricular decisions. He thought that many of these duties can be executed in the current framework, and that if the Dean would not be a Vice-President who might be able to speak with real authority on the Arts and Sciences, and if there have been a series of steps that scale back the power of this individual, what is the point of making the current Arts and Sciences Dean a stand-alone Dean? Why do we need to go through a restructuring process to accomplish these goals?

 

Professor Julia Watson, a member of the Arts and Sciences sub-committee, noted her dissatisfaction with the way the discussion was proceeding. She noted that the committee had spent the majority of their time on Version 1, and thought that it should be discussed prior to the very recently finished Version 2.

 

Professor Jeff McKee, chair of the Arts and Sciences sub-committee, explained the history of the two resolutions. He noted that the committee met and put their ideas regarding their dissatisfaction with the proposal into Vrsion 1 At the last Faculty Council meeting, there was a discussion about making Council more proactive, and that was the origin of Version 2, which attempts to make Council constructive, rather than obstructive. He said that Version 1 is meant to be a consensus document, combining all the views of Faculty Council, where Version 2 is a document reflecting the majority opinion. He explained this is an important document, because it is the first big message to the new president.

 

Professor Jerry Winer said that he supports Version 2 because it points out why this proposal was a bad idea and remains a bad idea. He said that we have a very narrow time-window and that if Council does not take a strong stand, their opportunity to offer their opinion will vanish. He said that the problems the Ferrar Report examined have been going on for years, and there is not any need to rush this proposal through.

 

Dr. Gunther replied that Council needs to take a strong stand. He has been informed that the President has been told that the faculty support the proposal, and it has only been opposed by the Chairs and Deans of ASC. He said that committing ourselves to an ill-conceived restructuring before we examine incremental improvements within the existing structure is a bad idea.

 

Professor Steve Fink noted that he felt railroaded by the introduction of Version 2, especially when it had not been seen by a member of the sub-committee. Dr. Gunther replied that he feels that Faculty Council needs to take a definitive stand, and not doing so may limit their input in the future. Following an extensive discussion on the merits of how each proposal would be interpreted Dr. Gunther’s motion was withdrawn.  It was decided that a new resolution should be written, separate from the position document

 

There was a lengthy discussion on which points should be highlighted by the resolution. Dr. Gunther moved to approve the following language:

 

Given our concerns about specific aspects of the Provost’s Jan 16th document to restructure the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences, we oppose its enactment.

The motion passed: 29 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions.

Dr. Winer moved to approve Version 1 of the document. Dr. McKee addressed point 6 of version one, concerning the strategic plan. He recommended referring to the recently published strategic plan-the Ripley Report. He also recommended that a new point should be added that the position of the Executive Dean and its powers should be vetted through the appropriate governance structures. Professor Stan Ahalt wanted to note his discomfort with Version 1. He noted that while it is a very reasonable document, passing it will undermine the recently passed resolution. He added that it would be a reasonable step, however, since Council does not have complete consensus on the matter. He felt that the Provost’s proposal was presented sloppily and under an arbitrary constrained time frame and rejected the notion that Faculty Council, or the University Governance system should be treated in this manner.

There was an extensive discussion on which proposal to endorse. The majority of comments were in favor of Version 1. Professor Mark Shanda proposed that in the second paragraph of Version 1, after the second sentence, the sentence “The Faculty Council Resolution of March 6, 2003 reflects these concerns.” The amendment passed unanimously by a voice vote.

Dr. McKee suggested that we insert a suggestion, number 1, that mandates approval by all relevance governance bodies and the University Senate. Professor Lynne Olson added that another major concern has been the unreasonable time restraints. Dr. Ahalt made a suggestion for wording for item number one:

1. Concern:     The current plan is broadly constructed, and was offered for review                   under unreasonable time constraints. 

 

    Suggestion: Any such restructuring plan with its considerable academic         impact, along with its implementation details, must be carefully reviewed and approved by all relevant committees of the University Senate, and the Senate itself.

There was debate on whether or not this proposal was academic or administrative in nature. The motion passed unanimously through a voice vote.

The Council voted on the revised Version 1. The revision passed 17 for, 12 against, 3 abstentions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:17 pm