Reasons for Supporting the Change in Faculty Senate
Bylaws
[Download this file as a Word document]
There are two structural changes being proposed, in
addition to a variety of small housekeeping changes. By far the more
important change would be in the membership of Faculty Senate, so that faculty
have a clearer and more direct voice. Another, smaller change is in the way
votes are counted.
There are aspects of this proposal about which each various
faculty members of Faculty Senate are less than thrilled, but the proposal
includes some other factor to mitigate those concerns. As a result of extensive
deliberation, some imagination and nuance, and willingness for compromise, this
proposal represents (1) progress toward a STRONGER, CLEARER, and MORE DIRECT
faculty VOICE, (2) continuity with existing principles in Faculty Senate
representation, (3) and mechanisms to meet concerns.
Proposed Change in Membership
CURRENT: VOTING: one from each div + Pres + VPAA + 2 div
heads + Graduate Dean (with Dean of Students and one student non-voting)
PROPOSED: VOTING: two from each degree granting div + 1
from each of Military Sc and Libraries and Museums + Pres (or designee) + 1 div
head (with VPAA non-voting, with Dean of Students notified and invited, with two
students, non-voting).
To visualize the current system and the proposed one, look
at the following charts. Figure 1 shows, approximately, how actual faculty
members are currently distributed among the ten divisions. As you can see,
significantly more than half the faculty members are in the largest three of the
ten divisions. Put another way, the five smallest divisions make up less than
one quarter of the faculty.
Figure 2 shows the voting make up of the current faculty
senate. Administration holds one third of the total votes. Furthermore, the
three largest divisions which contain more than half of the faculty members
carries only one fifth of the total votes.
Figure 3 shows the proposed voting membership of the
faculty senate.
Here is
why this is a good thing. First, it reduces the voting administrative presence.
It is important to note that there still IS a significant administrative vote
(two votes, analogous to those of a degree-granting division, and with the VPAA
still a non-voting member). The difference is that now this body reflects,
primarily, the faculty, which is not the case with the current faculty senate.
Second, by reducing the proportional number of votes for only the two smallest
divisions which do not grant degrees, faculty from the larger divisions are more
fairly represented. It is very important to note, however, that this is NOT
proportional representation. (Proportional representation would look like Figure
1; Figure 3 is quite different from Figure 1!) This proposal maintains the
importance of the division as the primary governing unit in the university
structure, while addressing concerns of some who argued that representation
should be proportional to division size. Lastly, this proposal, by going from
ten voting faculty members out of fifteen voting members to eighteen voting
faculty members out of twenty voting members, allows the faculty to fully
develop its own voice. Two members from each of the degree granting divisions
means that a large division such as social science could more appropriately
represent the variety of viewpoints which it, necessarily, will have. There are
opportunities for more faculty members to be involved with only a small increase
in the number of voting members, and possibly an even smaller increase in the
number of voices at the table. (To address a concern by smaller divisions
about service responsibilities by a smaller number of faculty members, the
proposal contains a provision by which a single faculty member can attend
meetings and cast votes for both divisional representatives.)
The increase in the number of (non-voting) students, and
the explicit addition of the option (for students) of registering support or not
for bills has the support of Student Senate.
Proposed Change in How Abstentions Are Counted
CURRENT: for all intents and purposes, an abstention
counts as a no, so for something to pass, the yes votes must beat the sum of the
no votes and the abstentions.
PROPOSED: an abstention counts as a non-vote, so for
something to pass, the yes votes must beat the no votes, BUT, the number of yes
votes must be at least 2/3 of a quorum. (There would be 20 members on the
senate, and a quorum would be 11 votes, so nothing could pass with fewer than 8
yes votes.)
The current system, basically, allows initiatives to die
not because they are strongly opposed but rather because people are unable to or
unwilling to make up their minds and take a stand. The proposed system says that
if you aren’t sure, then you just don’t vote. Some worry that counting
abstentions as non-votes would allow something to pass with a very small number
of votes, which would not be a good thing, but the “number of yes votes must be
at least 2/3 of a quorum” rule absolutely prevents that from happening. The
proposed change is good because, basically, it allows for a more accurate and
honest reading of where the membership stands on any issue, and it discourages
apathy.
Summary
The overall effect of these changes is to empower the
faculty while still affirming “tried and true” Truman values such as a
significant administrative presence in faculty deliberations and consideration
of the division as the primary representative body for governance. A Faculty
Senate which has the opportunity to fully develop a faculty voice will
discourage cynicism and apathy among the faculty, allowing for a genuine
partnership between faculty and administration as we pursue our common goal of a
liberal education for out students.