1. Retain the University Senate -- This university used to function according to the principle of faculty governance. We have virtually abandoned this model and are in fact a top down organization where faculty in the senate are mainly reactive, as opposed to proactive. If there is a desire to retain the university senate, qua university senate, there are ways the Senate should be influenced more by the faculty, including:

A) the percentage of faculty members should be increased.

B) Faculty members should be defined as faculty members who are not administrators.

C) The actual pragmatics of conducting the Senate might change more toward recognizing faculty as well, so, for example, instead of having the President conducting the meetings a faculty member, perhaps elected as chairperson of the senate do so. One argument for retaining the University Senate is that it allows our decisions to go the Board of Trustees whereas Faculty Senates do not usually operate in this fashion. This assumption was never tested, however.

2. Broaden the University Senate to include staff. It is my belief that this is one of the least defensible recommendations. What it has in its favor is of course the idea of inclusiveness, and all of the positive connotations that implies. However, there are several major problems with the idea:

A) Logically, the functioning and concerns of the Senate have little to do with staff. The concerns are usually academic and curricular ones. I cannot think of one vote on the Senate floor that was relevant to staff. I am sure that this could be disputed, but those instances are so few and far between that they are meaningless.

B) Staff members are often unknowledgeable about the issues involved would dilute functioning of the Senate. In a Faculty Council meeting it was pointed out that there are other bodies in the Senate, e.g., students, who are often unknowledgeable about issues, and that they simply defer to others who are more knowledgeable. The deference argument was also raised in the text of the report. Two points can be made in response to this argument. First, the argument is simply incorrect. In some instances these groups constituted critical swing votes even in situations that was of little concern to them, e.g., students casting a swing vote on a faculty issue.. It is likely that in such cases staff would simply act as a proxy for the administration. Second, a critical fault of the senate is precisely its passivity and the tendency of people to defer. Adding a group that would often be in the position of acquiescing because of a lack of knowledge or relevance would simply enhance the ailing functioning of the senate.

top of page

C) adding staff implies that the business and concerns of the Senate be xpanded to include those of staff. To give an example, why shouldn't the university senate be involved in staff compensation and benefit considerations if staff is part of the senate?

D) The staff could have its own organization

E) It is not clear that having the University Staff Advisory Committee (USAC) select members for the Senate would be fair.

3. The university Senate should have a total of 100 voting members. The basis for this recommendation is a series of justifications many of which simply cannot be supported and are liable to be completely false, e.g., increased efficiency; more active involvement by senators; a greater opportunity for students to have an impact; a more efficient use of senate time. Moreover, there are real dangers of a smaller senate. Here are some of them:

1. Potential problems in representation, e.g., how would the Senators be distributed across colleges.

2. The fact that with smaller numbers there would likely be less diversity when it comes to opinions. This potential problem was addressed in the report, but it is still liable to be valid.

3. The fact that small numbers of people concentrate power in the hands of a few people. Small groups of people could thus have an enormous influence on campus. Already, there are people who frequently are involved in senate dealings. Moreover, a particular danger arises since it is likely with a smaller number of people the administration will liable to have more power.

4. Recognize and reward participation in the Senate I have no comment here and I support the idea.

5. Student participation should increase Perhaps certain attendance requirements should be instituted for both faculty and students. Students or faculty who have exceptionally poor attendance should simply be replaced, unless there is good reason. However, on the other side of the coin, the Senate meetings should be made more meaningful.

6. Change in the day and time This is now moot.

top of page

7. Senate should have a role in the formation of university-level ad hoc committees -- This is a critical recommendation, but it did not go far enough in its recognition of problems with ad hoc committees. A real problem not recognized is that of selecting committees so that the membership is biased toward the orientation of the administration. It is my perception, and that of others, for example, that the previous committee dealing with the switch to semesters, the Versar committee, was heavily pro-administration. Heads of other critical committees are often thought to be predisposed toward the orientation of the administration.

The report also did not recognize other problems such as the fact that there is another category of ad hoc committee. I refer, for example, to the "workgroup" that the vice-provost formed to investigate the idea of differentiating categories of full professor. This was not only done without consultation of the Senate, as far as I know, but was almost secret in its nature. The recommendation should be changed to read: Ad hoc committees to the Senate should be integrally involved in the formation of virtually all ad hoc committees that involve university . Finally, it is the perception of many that planning and major decisions should involve faculty and the senate from the start..

8. Recommended modifications to the structure of committees and councils.

A. Senate Steering committee should be more active in designating charges to other committees. I had assumed this was already done. I am actually confused about this.

B Reinvigorate Faculty council

1. FC should assume control of four named committees: There is no question that faculty council needs re-invigorating. This is a critical observation. However, the recommendations, and in particular, the idea that FC should assume functions and responsibility of the 4 committees named falls far short of the mark. Most significantly, it is hard to see how assuming control of the 4 committees mentioned in the report is likely to re-invigorate faculty council. Thus while the report is on target in identifying a problem, the solution is lacking.

Consider that putting FC in charge of the Honorary Degrees program would do little to simulate or invigorate faculty interest. Most faculty aren't really that concerned with honorary degrees, and while designating the recipient of honorary degrees is important, it is certainly not one of the central issues facing our university.

The faculty hearing committee is already composed mainly, if not exclusively, of faculty - at least it has no students - so it is unclear what the proposal of adding this to FC would mean.

This leaves FCBC and CAFR as the saviors of FC. FCBC is an extremely time consuming committee that mainly does excellent investigative reporting on comparative salaries and benefits. It makes recommendations, but these recommendations have infrequently been followed and carry little weight. Having FC run this committee could consume the major portion of several faculty members in an enterprise that has very little clout.

It is possible, however, that with aggressive leadership faculty control of FCBC could be productive, so here is one instance in which faculty control might prove beneficial. But that assumes a university that is willing to listen to the committee.

top of page

Finally, much of the business of CAFR - like that of the hearing committee - deals with privileged information so it is not clear how much of a role FC could play in assuming the functioning of that committee either.

Control of some of these committees might be important if the role of the committees were redesigned, however.

Here is a possible way to re-invigorate Faculty Council. Make attendance at a certain proportion of the meetings mandatory. On critical issues, e.g., switch to semesters, SEIs, proposals to eliminate/condense units, academic plan, financial restructuring, FC should be on the route of committees that investigates and reports to the senate. Perhaps even some of the business of the aforementioned 4 committees can come before FC for its input. Then, FC can either have its own independent input to the Senate, or have input to the committees involved. This should be done with votes being taken in FC and with minutes taken of the meetings. The few meetings I have attended came to no conclusion. There was typically no vote taken.

The objection mentioned on page 32 of using Senate time to consider matters that pertain exclusively to faculty is amazing. Should the Hearing committee not report to the Senate? Should we not deal, then, with issues that pertain exclusively or mainly to students, to administrators? Must every issue have an immediate university wide import?

2. Not having meetings tied to Senate meetings is in place, as far as I know.

3. I am not sure of the conflict between asking the faculty cabinet-executive committee vs. the steering committee to route business through the senate.

4. Again, people who don't attend without reason should be ejected.

C., D. and E. have already been dealt with.

top of page

F. On the improved set of procedures for appointing individuals to standing committees. There are more problems in the selection of committee members than is recognized. During the Faculty Council meeting when this was discussed, two people admitted publically that they wanted to be on a committee or committees and were not selected. I constituted a third. One member of the audience claimed that he has essentially stopped putting his name in. I feel the same way. I am also not in favor of appealing to administrators for advice.

G. Merging Rules, Program and Steering Committees It seems to make sense to merge the Program committee with others. I don't know about the wisdom of merging rules and steering. One of the things that concerns me is who the members of the various committees are, and who would be eliminated. For example, a few years ago the provost was a member of steering, or at least attended steering. Merging with a select membership, heavily influenced by administration, could be deleterious.

I. Eliminate legislative affairs. This should really be expanded to have faculty representation on say the board of regents.

J. Create New Information Access and Learning Technology Council One wonders whether the bookstore and library committees should be merged and a new committee created on information and technology.

K. Athletic Council There needs to be more than a liaison from athletics to the Fiscal Committee. Fiscal currently has virtually nothing to do with athletics and medicine. Both of these should be connected to Fiscal.

M. Council on academic affairs. No opinion.

N. Council on Student Affairs. No opinion

top of page

O. Appropriately engage the Fiscal committee. There is a dire need to engage the fiscal committee, but it is unclear how providing advance notice of problems will solve the problem. Currently, the meetings largely consist of unilateral presentations. Advice from the committee is seldom called for. No minutes are taken. Action is generally not taken. See K above.

P. Diversity Committee. I agree with the proposals.

Q. Research committee. No comment

10. Chairs of major Senate committees should be compensated and recognized.

11. Institute inclusive orientation program There is no question that orientation needs to be addressed. This needn't be addressed at a retreat. Much of it could be done electronically, and at the very least electronically conveyed information should at least accompany the more formal program.

12. Improve communications between the Senate and Campus. On Campus already often covers Senate meetings and is often not read. The Lantern is also frequently not read by faculty. The mechanism that is already in place should suffice.

top of page

13. Improve the efficiency of the full Senate meetings. The issue is not with the efficiency of the Senate meetings. They are already incredibly efficient to the point of nearly being able to determine the amount of time the meetings will take. The problem is whether they are meaningful and go beyond serving a ceremonial purpose. As it now stands, the meetings are mind-numbing with most of the decisions made in the committees and almost blindly ratified in the full meetings. Votes are usually rubber-stamped approvals of what was proposed by committees. Only on rare occasion is there any dynamism, debate, etc., from the floor of the senate, at least on matters where there are votes to be taken. Understandably there is a need to avoid chaos and rely on committees. Bt we have simply gone too far in that direction, to the point that the full meetings are really not worthy of much of faculty time. It is hard to defend going to those meetings for the sake of casting a vote. Many a time I have seen faculty members complain in disbelief about the meetings. Possible changes:

A. The consent agenda is appealing, but it leaves open the question of which things will be brought to the floor.

B. Eliminate many of the initial presentations. There is no doubt that many of these, particularly from the president are valuable, and many are informative. But they detract from time that might be spent on important university business.

C. When making presentations or proposals to the Senate, have the relevant subcommittees target issues. Perhaps close committee votes should be identified instead of presenting a united front. Ex, there were some issues with the library plan that were seemingly hushed up. Ways of identifying crucial issues:

Ci. Committees should take minutes

Cii. Committees should post minutes on web; identify issues.

D. The idea of having time for discussion is interesting but not the way it was handled in the past, e.g., considering a switch to semesters had a contrived quality to it.

top of page

E. There are also structural changes that should be made. As it now stands, no substantive vote on anything can be initiated from the floor of the senate and voted on that day. It has to go back to committee or delayed for another session. The intent of the rule is understandable, to prevent rash decisions from being made. But this essentially puts a damper on even the simplest of initiatives. Last time I was on the Senate I made motions from the floor of the Senate that were simple: to post the notices-agenda of the Senate meetings on the web; to have the secretary post complete minutes. Motions of this ilk do not have to be delayed. Perhaps we can identify critical vs. non critical issues, i.e., ones that have to have additional reviews vs. ones that can be acted upon. In any event even if the rules is changed, we should encourage motions or proposals to be made from the floor of the Senate. This makes proposals public and ultimately a matter for a vote on the floor of the senate.

F. We should consider having a person other than the president of the university conducting the Senate meeting.

14 New Educational and information materials The idea of a manual is good; but we don't need a retreat. Committees should have minutes and issues and those should be posted.

15 Strengthen Ties with Board. This should be done only if it is meaningful. I am uncertain about the function of a person on the board, e.g., does this person address the board with issues; have a place on the agenda. It's not a person on the board that matters, but having access. Perhaps we should institute a meaningful way of the senate interacting with the board.

16 Increase level of support - No issue

Other ideas: The secretary of the faculty should have its role defined to give it more teeth. Minutes of committees should be taken and posted electronically. Votes of committees should be taken and posted electronically. Ways should be constructed to allow faculty to bring issues to the senate. Feedback from various organizations might be solicited. The overwhelming influence of administration on some committees should be curbed. People who head critical committees should be advanced in rank.

top of page