 |
|
 |
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESENT: D. Betz, P. Betz, Davis, Dunkley, Fisher, Goldfrank, Jacobs, Martire, Moran Cruz, Peck, Rameh
Minutes
JoAnn Moran Cruz summarized the work that had led to a revision of the Senate Constitution. Points considered included appointment procedures for committees and administrative searches. Some appointments formerly made by the Main Campus Caucus will in future be made by the Executive Faculty.
Also at issue was the election procedure for the Main Campus which has generated several proposals that have been distributed to the faculty.
Peter Dunkley cited the election procedure of the Executive Faculty which is by department. He felt that the specific base might give candidates a special voice. He has, however, reconsidered in view of other issues which have suggested the advantage of other systems.
David Goldfrank cited the desirability, in general, of communicating with one's constituency. Platforms of candidates should be published. He favored the at-large system because he felt it brought forward those who truly desire to serve. He also cited constituencies, such as younger faculty, who are not represented on a departmental basis. The Executive Faculty has some representatives of very small groups.
JoAnn Moran Cruz suggested that the Senate should be more accountable and communicate more with the faculty. She suggested greater use of e-mail. Elections are now more information-based in that platforms are published. This should be extended.
Dorothy Betz cited the slight turnout at the meeting as symptomatic of communication through department heads or other representatives instead of direct communication with faculty. She advocated the at-large system as more directed to each faculty member.
Mark Jacobs asked whether a unit-based system might help maintain representation of the Library.
Leona Fisher responded that in the at-large system people, from all divisions, who were interested in larger issues would be selected.
Peter Dunkley compared the Senate with the Executive Faculty but said that debate in both bodies represented larger, and not exclusively departmental, views.
Peter Dunkley cited the large members of younger faculty on the Executive Faculty. Wayne Davis mentioned that it would take a junior person longer to be well known enough to get on the Senate.
Dan Martire said he had studied proportions of numbers elected from the various jurisdictions and found that over time all had been well represented.
JoAnn Moran Cruz cited the advantages of the present system with one at-large and one jurisdictional body.
Jeff Peck asked why not let the Executive Faculty serve as Main Campus Caucus. JoAnn Moran Cruz said the bodies discuss different matters. She also cited the fact that departments sometimes simply let the chairperson serve on the Executive Faculty.
Peter Dunkley asked why two different bodies would be useful. Would this allow for greater pressure on the administration or offer them an opportunity to divide and conquer. Paul Betz noted that the groups, aware of this, made an effort to work together. Wayne Davis cited examples of working together. He also recalled the need for a faculty voice to oppose the Reorganization which had led to the formation of the Executive Faculty.
Paul Betz recalled the dispute with the administration in which University lawyers tried to deny the faculty right to appoint members to search committees.
Leona Fisher cited the enriching nature of having two, different bodies.
JoAnn Moran Cruz announced that the faculty were being surveyed
on the question of election procedure and should return their questionnaires
by December 10.
DB/jhg