Meeting Minutes
October 8, 2002
Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Donna Post, President.
ROLL CALL
Members present: James S. Allen, Marcia Anderson, Robert D. Benford, Anna Brzyski, Bruce A. DeVantier, James E.
Duggan, Kimberly A. Espy, Paul H. Henry, H. Randy Hughes, Laura K. Kidd, Manohar R. Kulkarni, Nancy Mundschenk,
Donna M. Post, Richard A. Rivers, Jose R. Ruiz, Pamela A. Smoot, Jane L. Swanson, Robert L. Spellman, Russ Trimble (ex
officio), Susan E. Tulis, John S. Washburn, Walter Wendler (ex officio), Frederick Williams, John Winings (for Janet L.
Rogers), Andrew J. Wood, Alan Woolf, David S. Worrells.
Members absent without proxy: Elamin M. Elamin, Robert H. Helfert, Nancy Khardori, Mary Ellen Lamb, Stephen M.
Milner, Satu Somani.
Visitors and guests: Caleb Hale (Southern Illinoisan), Jane Huh (Daily Egyptian), Mary Wallace (Undergraduate Student
Government), Neal Young (Undergraduate Student Government).
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting on September 10, 2002, were approved as presented.
REPORTS
1. D. Post reported that: a) she attended the budget retreat on September 11, prior to the September Board of
Trustees' meeting. Dan Long from the Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission gave a presentation on the budget outlook
over the next two years; b) she attended the Board of Trustees meeting on September 12; c) she was pleased with the outcome
of the annual faculty meeting on September 19, and had received several positive comments; and d) she attended a meeting of
the Council on Illinois University Senates (CIUS). This group would like the public institutions to be more visible and work
together to get the attention of legislators. Each institution was asked to raise $1,000 to help the organization become an
advocate for faculty at public institutions. The funds will be used to pay for advertisements, as well as for research to show
how the use of public monies for private institutions is hurting the public institutions. On another front, the institutions were
also asked to two draft resolutions, one to address the issue of placing a faculty member on the Board of Trustees at every
public university in the state, and another to recommend that Board members be assigned to specific campuses and be
required to attend one Faculty Senate meeting each semester on the campuses they represent. F. Williams and R. Hughes have
been asked to draft those resolutions. She also reported that: e) the first brainstorming session went well, but there was poor
attendance. Senators should send representatives if they are unable to attend. D. Post thanked J. Allen for facilitating the
meeting and R. Williams for his notice to colleagues in Liberal Arts encouraging them to participate in the sessions; f) she
attended the big picture meeting on campus at which both Carbondale and Edwardsville campuses gave presentations to the
IBHE on their goals for the future; g) at the Executive Council meeting, there was much discussion about the Chancellor's
planning process in which the vice chancellors and deans were asked to consider planning for 5% and 10% reductions in their
budgets. A resolution was proposed by M. Lamb, a member of the Budget Committee. After lengthy discussion, it was
decided that a special meeting would be held on October 15 for the Senate to hear from all the deans about how they would
handle the cuts. The special meeting of the Senate was called, and an invitation extended to the deans. However, since then,
she has heard from several deans and the Chancellor, that it is too soon to hold such a meeting. She was asked that it be
postponed until the deans have had an opportunity to generate a good faculty discussion in their colleges. Initially, the
resolution M. Lamb drafted was to be distributed at this meeting and presented at the special meeting. But because she was
not present, the Budget Committee would have the opportunity to bring the resolution for consideration under its report; h)
the previously-scheduled brainstorming session will be held on October 15; i) she attended two constituency heads meetings,
one with the President and the other with the Chancellor; j) the Search Committee for Vice President for Financial Affairs and
Administration has identified semifinalists, and reference checks are in process. Fly-in interviews will be held October 21-
22; k) she met with Provost Perkins to resolve an issue of concern that involves both the Senate and Graduate Council; l)
feedback on the Southern at 150 draft should be forwarded to the Chancellor's office by October 11; and m) a representative
from the Undergraduate Student Government has asked for an opportunity to speak under the report on Committee on
Committees.
2. Chancellor Wendler reported that: a) he would appreciate comments anyone would like to make on the Southern
at 150 report. He said he would work through the comments and send back responses; and b) he has received several
comments about the McLeod Summer Playhouse. He noted that the recent article in the Daily Egyptian was fairly accurate
with respect to his position on the issue. He believes that the Playhouse is an important program, but there are in fact many
good things to do on campus and not enough resources to do them.
The Chancellor then discussed the 5-10% budget planning process, and distributed a copy of the memo he sent to the
deans. He said that he is asking that the deans and vice chancellors take a hard look internally and decide which programs are
strong and which are not. He agreed that it was premature to hold a special meeting, and that the deans need time to consider
the plan and gather faculty input. His memo outlines a process for establishing a task force after the November 22 deadline,
which would look at the various plans/ideas and recommend the ones that make the most sense. He said he believed it was a
good idea for the Senate to hold a special session to review and examine the documents, noting that there would be plenty of
time for input long the way.
R. Spellman noted that he is one of the members on the Budget Committee in opposition to the resolution that will
be presented by that committee. He is opposed, he said, because the resolution asks the Chancellor to withdraw the memo to
stop the process, as far as the academic units are concerned. He said that R. Benford, a member of the committee who favors
the resolution, would present it under the Budget Committee report.
A. Karnes questioned the process of determining strategic hires. He noted that the University took between $1.2 to
$2 million and made decisions about allocating continuing faculty lines in colleges; those lines were then put in areas of high
importance, resulting in the allocation of 28 continuing faculty lines. Nine of those were allocated to the Science, four to
Chemistry alone; two were retained in the Graduate School, and three went to Agricultural Sciences. Three others went to
Engineering. A. Karnes said that 17 of the 28 lines went primarily to colleges that can generate federal research grants.
However, those three colleges represent only about 3,000 students or 18% of the total undergraduate population--and all of
them are down in student enrollments this fall. There are five other colleges (Library, Education and Human Services,
Business and Administration, MCMA, and ASA) that represent 7,000, or about 40%, of the undergraduate students on
campus, but among them picked up only four new lines. Liberal Arts picked up seven lines, but three apiece went to
Anthropology and Psychology, also departments with the ability to generate federal research grants. A. Karnes questioned the
ability to generate federal research grants as the sole criterion and quality for strategic importance on this campus. If that is
the case, he argued, there are those in other colleges that cannot play that game and need to consider whether they should
remain at SIUC. Chancellor Wendler responded that he did not think the ability to generate external research funding was the
only criterion, though it was certainly one of them. A. Karnes said that the allocation of the 28 lines, as well as the allocation
of the graduate assistantships early in the fall, portends badly for those colleges that do not generate federal research grants,
and it appears that those colleges will have funds bled out of them and reallocated to those colleges that do. He indicated that
non-research grant colleges do many things well, and it seems that their success does not count. The Chancellor responded
that he has replied to people who have written on Southern at 150 and on this issue that no one yet--except him--has
suggested there be a change in SIUC's mission. To be a research university in the sense that almost everyone defines it means
that certain things have to be done. If we do not want this to be a research university, then things have to be done in a
different way. He is not hearing many suggestions about changing the mission, although he believes it to be a legitimate
possibility. He did not believe it was accurate to say the only criterion being used is internal research funding, noting some of
the higher-paid faculty on campus are not in research-heavy units.
A. Brzyski noted that when individual departments/colleges were asked what lines they wanted to fill, there was
much debate both internally and externally. Positions were ranked and submitted to the deans, who then submitted them to
the Chancellor. What happened in the final outcome was very different from what was submitted from individual units. Those
recommendations were apparently disregarded. She asked Chancellor Wendler how he accounted for that discrepancy. The
Chancellor responded that he doubted that the suggestions were disregarded. He determined how many positions were
suggested around the campus based on the information provided to him by the Provost's office. The final process was
handled by the Provost's office, and he said he stands behind the decisions of that office.
R. Hughes asked if this was the end of the allocation for faculty lines for this year. The Chancellor responded that
some positions might not be filled; additional funds may also develop, and then there may be more opportunities. But unless
there are other funds, there will not be additional lines.
J. Allen said that it was not clear what the criteria were for the reallocations, and it pertains directly to the current
budget cutting exercise of 5-10% which may very well end up, at the college level, undermining the very programs the
Chancellor seeks to enhance. J. Allen questioned how the deans would know what the Chancellor expected of them if there
were no clear guidelines about what should be enhanced and what he would like to see cut. Chancellor Wendler responded
that there are certain programs across the campus that are needed in order for the institution to be considered a university, and
those things should be done well. There are other programs on campus that are not necessary. However, no one seems willing
to say that these programs are strong/weak. The challenge is in the programs that the University does not absolutely need and
that may not be as strong as some others. He does not expect the deans to be able to answer all these questions; it is
something that will have to be done at the university level. He is not capable of making these decisions on his own and needs
help from the deans and faculty. He added that this planning process did not spring up in the last two months. It was first
raised in a memo to the deans in July. The fact is, he argued, that the University needs to do less with less. J. Allen said that
he believed the Chancellor clearly has a notion of what constitutes quality; he just expressed it with 28 salary lines. It is
unclear, however, what the criteria were, and it would be very helpful for the faculty and the deans to know what criteria were
used for the 28 lines. F. Williams noted that irrespective of what programs work better, the Chancellor must have an idea of
what is indispensable. He asked the Chancellor to provide the deans with a list of the programs he believes are indispensable.
The Chancellor responded that it would be hasty of him to suggest such a thing until he got a better sense from the deans. He
believes program specificity is best done in the deans' offices.
R. Rivers said that the Chancellor had indicated that the 5-10% cuts would be based on recommendations from the
deans, but it was also suggested there would be some sort of outside expertise to help make final decisions. The Chancellor
indicated that there would be a task force. R. Rivers asked if the task force would be better able than the deans themselves to
decide what cuts to make. The Chancellor responded that someone would have to make the final decisions, because he had
yet to find a dean that would say that s/he had a weak program. "All of the children get A's." R. Rivers pointed out that even
so, the children were also ranked ("number one son, number one daughter," etc.). In order to get 10%, something or someone
had to go, even if the children all got A's. He asked if the rankings would be followed or if someone else would know better.
Chancellor Wendler responded that the process would need careful handling, more so than the strategic faculty hires.
N. Mundschenk reiterated the need for clarity about the rubric for evaluating "marginal" versus "excellent." The
Chancellor said he was unsure what it is, and part of the process would be to work through that. He does not have all the
answers, but can say without equivocation that not all the children are equal. He noted that he is not only talking about
academic programs. The non-academic units are also having to answer the same questions. He further noted that these are not
necessarily budget cuts, but rather plans for changes in structure.
A. Brzyski asked Chancellor Wendler how he defined research. He responded that he does not have a particular
definition, although research, scholarship, and creative activity are usually the broad areas he considers. Closer definition
depends on the subcultures of the discipline. R. Hughes asked if he planned to establish criteria to be used before November
22, particularly for how those monies would be used afterwards. The Chancellor said that he hoped that the materials and
analyses from the colleges would help him clarify the criteria. He indicated a distinct possibility of another budget rescission
in January, and he feels a sense of urgency and wants to be ready if it happens. He has not made any determinations and
suggested careful reading of "Southern at 150" to use as a vehicle to begin assembling a construct of what will be the
University's reality. R. Hughes expressed concern about what kind of message it sends to legislators that the administration is
willing to cut programs in order to remain affordable. The Chancellor responded that he was not ready to cut programs for the
sake of affordability. He also said that making cuts in the budget would not necessarily make the University subject to
disproportionately higher cuts in funding. It is an environmental reality that no matter what happens, there will not be much
additional funding from the state. After further discussion, D. Post invited Senators to consider what they believe to be
essential and non-essential at a research institution and send their comments to either her or Chancellor Wendler.
3. A. Karnes reported on the September 13 meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) of the IBHE. He
reported that deputy directors Doug Day, Dan Layzell and Deb Smitley gave presentations on Board Initiatives for the year.
None of the initiatives appear to be good for universities. One is an affordability study. In August, the IBHE established a
Committee on Affordability, made up of five members of the Board of Higher Education and five members of the Illinois
Student Assistance Commission. They will conduct an analysis of this issue to assess what changes have taken place in the
affordability of Illinois higher education over time, whom those changes have affected, and what actions can reasonably be
taken at the state and institutional levels, as well as by students and their families, to enhance affordability. The FAC
expressed concern about who is representing public universities or faculty on the committee, and whether there is a danger
that the Board may attempt to exercise control over tuition at public institutions. A. Karnes reported that another of the
initiatives calls for the Board to develop a set of performance criteria to measure progress in achieving the goals of the Illinois
commitment. These criteria will probably be used as benchmarks for the institutions. The Illinois Commitment has goals that
were meant to be political in nature and do not measure what faculty, as academics, do. For example, goal 1 is to help Illinois
businesses sustain strong economic growth. Goal 3 is to prevent any Illinois citizen from being denied an opportunity for a
college education because of financial aid; and Goal 6 is to ensure that Illinois colleges and universities continually improve
productivity, cost effectiveness, and accountability. Only one of the goals, number 5, deals with educational quality, and the
proposed performance indicators all have to do with assessment of some type. It appears to the FAC that there will be even
more reporting requirements, at a time when budgets are being slashed. If anything, reporting should be eliminated, not
increased.
In other business, A. Karnes reported that the FAC reviewed the budget. Data for the first two months of the year
indicated that revenues were as expected; however, payouts for lapsed payments and health care were higher than expected.
The committee was also briefed about what would happen if everything went well (though that outcome is doubtful). Higher
education could expect to get between $86 and $125 million in new money for FY 2004. Even so, that money would be eaten
by a required $65-70 million appropriation to SURS, restoring MAP to the FY 2002 levels ($38 million), and a one-percent
salary increase ($15.8 million). This is before any RAMP dollars, any more health care costs being shifted, restoring
programs not funded last year, or other board initiatives, such as addressing the teacher shortage.
B. DeVantier reported that he attended for A. Karnes another meeting of the FAC on October 1, in conjunction with
an Illinois Board of Higher Education meeting. The committee attended the IBHE meeting, at which Mr. La Vista discussed
the budget outlook. He estimated a $500 million shortfall this year, with the possibility of up to a $2.5 billion shortfall the
next fiscal year. There was a brief segment of the meeting at which all the constituency heads that report to the IBHE spoke.
Ken Anderson from the University of Illinois mentioned the faculty compensation study done through the executive director's
office. His comment was that it is a "tell it like it is" report. B. DeVantier noted that the study is the report which R. Spellman
forwarded on the listserv, and faculty should look at that in detail. B. DeVantier also reported that the focus this year was on
non-salary items, but there were some comparisons done. Since1999, the average faculty salary increased 16.4% at all public
institutions in Illinois; 7.9% at private institutions; and 5% at community colleges. Private institutions were at 105% of their
peers on fringe benefits and retirement, whereas the public institutions were at 90.1% of their peers.
Finally, at the Faculty Advisory Council meeting with the IBHE, the Board asked if there were any ideas it could
take back to the legislature on a measure of performance at Illinois universities; specifically, whether there was a
comprehensive test that universities could have all graduates take (an exit test) to show that Illinois faculty are doing as good
a job as, or better than, institutions outside the state. This question generated spirited discussion, with FAC members
attempting to explain why that would be very difficult to do. It is unclear whether the point was made to Board members. The
Board believes it needs more ammunition in trying to convince the legislature that there are quality programs in Illinois.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
R. Hughes reported that there are two resolutions that will be written in cooperation with members of the Graduate
Council Executive Committee.
BUDGET COMMITTEE -- R. Spellman, Chair
1. R. Spellman distributed and discussed the committee's report on the Fiscal 2003-04 budget outlook (see
Appendix 1). He also distributed a report the committee generated on the Intercollegiate Athletics budget, noting that it is not
a black hole, as everyone seems to think (see Appendix 2). With respect to B. DeVantier's report on the salary survey, R.
Spellman suggested looking at SIUC in the tables, because there is a different picture there than what the overall averages
show. Any significant new money the University receives will likely only be in tuition increases.
2. R. Spellman presented the committee's report on SIUC Budget Information Sources (included as Attachment A
to the Agenda). He noted the current fiscal year, by department, is on the Internet for anyone wanting to view their own or
other department budgets.
3. R. Spellman reported that the committee was asked to look at Oracle, now known as Administrative Information
Systems (AIS). AIS is a replacement of the University's financial reporting and control system. He presented and discussed
the committee's report (included as Attachment B to the Agenda), and then made the following motion (seconded by A.
Woolf):
That the report on Administrative Information Systems (Oracle) be accepted and that it be distributed to the
members of the AIS Steering Committee, the two chancellors, the dean of the School of Medicine, the
president, and members of the Board of Trustees.
Motion carried.
4. R. Benford distributed the following resolution for consideration:
WHEREAS according to his memo of September 24, the Chancellor has required of the college deans a 5% budget
reduction for this year to be determined by November 22,
WHEREAS according to his memo of September 24, the Chancellor has also required of the college deans a plan
for an additional 5% budget reduction from structural changes to be implemented over the next four years,
WHEREAS deliberate planning for structural changes should be done with full participation by the units and their
staff over time,
WHEREAS deliberate planning for structural changes should be motivated by a need to promote efficiency without
endangering credit hour production or services to the students, rather than reducing a budget by a pre-determined
amount,
WHEREAS the academic units are already dangerously underfunded because of the budget cuts from last year as
well as previous years,
WHEREAS a significant number of further decreases will result in a sharp decrease in credit hours generated,
WHEREAS a sharp decrease in credit hours generated will result in a significant tuition shortfall,
WHEREAS a sharp decrease in credit hours generated will result in a significant decrease in state-appropriated
funding,
WHEREAS such sharp decreases in funding will almost certainly send the university in a downward spiral of even
further cuts to the colleges, further jeopardizing the academic mission of the university,
WHEREAS colleges have already set aside 2 to 3% of their budget to meet decreases in state appropriations,
BE IT RESOLVED that in the event of a decrease of state-appropriated money beyond the amount already
withheld by the colleges, that the Chancellor look elsewhere, beyond the college budgets, for the remaining
difference.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Chancellor rescind his demand for a plan for a 5% budget reduction based on structural
changes over the next four years by November 22.
R. Benford indicated that M. Lamb, who drafted the resolution, was not able to attend the meeting; and that he was
presenting the resolution on her behalf. He expressed the committee's concern about the timing of the process, coming on the
heels of 8% budget cuts last year, and the immediacy of the deadline for restructuring, etc., that is likely to undermine the
very goals articulated in Southern at 150 and elsewhere. The Chancellor is discussing across-the-board cuts for fiscal year 03
that would weaken all programs and might mean that colleges would violate existing contracts and lay off people. D. Post
entertained a motion to waive the five-day rule in order to consider the resolution. J. Allen moved to waive the five-day rule;
seconded by D. Worrells.
Motion to waive the five-day rule carried on a voice vote.
J. Allen suggested a friendly amendment to the final "resolved" clause to use the word "postpone" rather than
"rescind" because the plans were good; from his perspective, the November 22 date was difficult to coordinate for short-term
cuts. R. Benford believed the biggest problem was the November 22 date. Currently, departments are meeting to come up
with immediate plans. There are about 10 questions that the administration has asked the campus to address, and there is no
way to engage in the kind of serious rational evaluation and discussion of those plans in such a short amount of time. F.
Williams pointed out that "rescind" did not call for a time frame, but "postpone" did. If the word "postpone" is used, then a
specific date should be identified. R. Spellman expressed his opposition to the resolution, although he agreed with some of
the whereas clauses. He believed that the first priority on any cuts should be to avoid layoffs of full-time employees,
wherever they are. He also believed that the Chancellor should weight the cuts away from the academic departments,
although that is secondary to layoffs. With respect to rescinding structural changes, R. Spellman asserted the planning has
been delayed for too long already. The Chancellor first asked in July that this process begin, and the deans stonewalled. In the
past, when there has been an effort to make change to get away from being the low-cost university, and whenever there was
financial stringency, cuts were made across the board. In the last paragraph of the Chancellor's memo he was basically
saying, "you do it, or I'll do it." R. Spellman indicated that, in his judgment, that mandate has been long overdue at this
university.
R. Hughes stated that the amendment may not be necessary; to rescind this particular plan would include the demand
that it be done by November 22. He believed that it would be appropriate to rescind this plan, though that did not mean that
there could not be a plan. The reasons that the plan should be rescinded have to do with the absence of priorities and criteria
for making these plans. A. Woolf agreed with R. Spellman's comments, adding that he does not believe wordsmithing can
address the problems. He is more concerned with the first "resolved" because it is asking the Chancellor to do something he
believes is unrealistic, given the information at hand. A. Woolf expressed concern that the resolution is more a statement of
despair than a constructive alternative. D. Post temporarily relinquished the chair and expressed her opposition to the plan,
stating that to rescind the plan would be to not have a plan. F. Williams expressed hesitation about postponing the plan and
preferred to have more information from the Chancellor about which programs the Chancellor considered essential, in order
to enlighten the entire community. J. Duggan questioned whether the friendly amendment of using "postpone" rather than
"rescind" was ever accepted or if there was any response to postponing by a certain date. J. Allen withdrew his friendly
amendment.
B. DeVantier expressed his belief that the deans were in denial and had passed the issue down to the department
level to deal with, in hopes that faculty would say the process is flawed and refuse to participate. R. Benford did not believe it
was fair to say that deans or even the author of the resolution were in denial. M. Lamb, for example, serves on the Liberal
Arts budget committee. Taking an additional 3% out of the COLA budget would result in layoffs. The resolution asked that
the plan be stopped and that money be sought elsewhere, that full-time staff not be laid off in this fiscal year, and that
colleges be given more time, so that a thoughtful plan could be identified and articulated. The exercise has already caused
harm and will cause even more. K. Espy did not believe the suggestion that some colleges have more fat than others was
useful or productive. She found it surprising that some colleges have not started planning and was pleased that someone was
finally standing up and saying this needed to be done.
R. Rivers spoke against the resolution, stating that there has been a distribution of funds for graduation assistants,
undergraduate assistantships, and critical faculty. They have all occurred separately and with what appear to be different
criteria that generally have not been articulated until after the money has been distributed. He believed that the sooner the
campus had a plan outlining direction and priorities, the sooner all of these fiscal adjustments could be put into the same
framework. Everyone will then be headed in the same direction, though not all may agree with that direction. J. Allen did not
believe there was much in the resolution that was constructive, so it was easy to be critical. What it suggests, unfortunately, is
that the plan and the process for the plan are being confused. Passing the buck to the lowest administrative units in the
departments is a fatally flawed process in the search for a reasonable plan. Of course, everyone will claim that their budgets
are already too small, and of course, there will be resistance to a plan to make cuts when the process itself is flawed.
Whether there is agreement with the resolution or not, the issue is: how to have a constructive plan that will achieve what the
Chancellor wants without having clear criteria or clear guidelines. The College of Liberal Arts would have a real problem
finding the money without laying off term faculty and GA's. J. Allen indicated that although he was not enthusiastic about the
framing of the resolution, it was an expression of concern about the faulty process, and so he would vote in favor of it. A.
Woolf said that voting for a flawed resolution would not solve any problems in Liberal Arts. He noted that the resolution did
not offer a solution. R. Spellman indicated that an across-the-board cut seemed likely. The Chancellor has asked for each
college to plan for up to a 5% reduction, initially. Each college can distribute that among its units as they see fit. Each college
will then have the opportunity to make the case that the full 5% would irreparably damage them. These things are looked at
again at the vice-chancellor and chancellor levels. R. Spellman indicated that he sees this as a step away from what has been
the standard at this university: every time there are financial straits everyone gets the same percentage across the board, and
that has, for the last 25 years, steadily whittled away the quality of this university. After further discussion, the question on
the resolution was called.
Resolution as presented failed 6-14-1 on a show of hands vote.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- B. DeVantier, Chair
1. A. Woolf (for B. DeVantier) presented for approval the following nominations to the Ad Hoc Committee for the
Student Conduct Code: Norma Ewing, Associate Professor, College of Education and Human Services; and Robert Arthur,
Professor, College of Agricultural Sciences. N. Young, Vice President of Undergraduate Student Government (USG),
distributed a resolution concerning enforcement of the Student Conduct Code that was recently approved by the USG. He said
that the Code has been under extreme scrutiny from the students over the last few years for a number of reasons. Last year, a
review of the Code was called, but it was put off. Now the review is being called again, but the USG was only given 24
hours' notice to select a representative for the committee. USG had already planned for this and was prepared; however, N.
Young expressed concern that other groups were not given adequate time to come up with proper or fair representation. To
that end, he wanted to voice the USG's concern with the Faculty Senate nominations being presented, both of whom are
associate deans. N. Young noted that from the student perspective, there is an "us-against-them" mentality. It is a sensitive
issue for students, because they do not believe administrators want to hear what they have to say. He noted that there is no
rush for nominations to the committee, and would like to propose that the Senate withhold submission of names until there is
adequate time to solicit the names of faculty willing to serve. A. Woolf indicated that the Committee on Committees often has
little lead time to appoint people to committees, and that is what happened with this request. The committee attempted to find
persons who would be advocates for students, and who would also be willing to serve with little notice. The two people being
considered met both criteria. The fact that they are also administrators was discussed in Executive Council, and it was
recognized that both were strong student advocates. The fact that they are administrators allows them to have more in-depth
knowledge of what students face.
There was discussion about how the Committee on Committees came to its selection of the two nominees and about
the overall committee selection process. There was also concern expressed that because of short turnaround times, names are
forwarded to the requesting offices prior to being approved by the Senate, which might put the Senate in the position of
having to withdraw nominations if they are subsequently not approved.
F. Williams pointed out that because of a loss of quorum, the Senate could no longer conduct business; so the names
could not be approved until the next meeting, anyway. D. Post asked for some direction from the Senate about whether it
should continue to operate as it has. A. Woolf believed the Senate had no choice but to continue to operate as it has in the
past. D. Post noted that it would be another month before the Senate could go through its regular process, which means that
there would be a delay in conducing hearings on the Code. N. Young indicated that a delay was what the USG wanted. A.
Woolf clarified that the two names that were submitted would be resubmitted at the next meeting. M. Wallace questioned
whether other nominations could also be submitted at the meeting for consideration. D. Post responded that nominations
could be accepted from the floor, but in general they come from the Committee on Committees. R. Spellman did not think
students should suffer under the illusion that there is much support for changing the nominees, in spite of the Senate's great
concern about the process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Williams, Secretary
FW:rm
Faculty Senate Homepage
Meeting Schedule |
Meeting Agenda |
Meeting Minutes |
Membership |
Committees |
Operating Paper
![]()
