This week the Faculty Senate will likely start to discuss and vote on sections of a revised Constitution. At first blush, this project may not sound very interesting, but let me assure you there are some important issues that will have an effect on all faculty members.
This week you should receive a copy of the current draft of the revised Constitution from Royal Berglee, FS Chair. If you don't, contact your department senators for a copy. Please let your senators know your thoughts on the proposed changes. You can also let me know your thoughts as well.
Some of the hot button issues include representation on the Senate, the evaluation of administrators (including the President), and communication with the Board of Regents. Please note that changes to the FS Constitution must be put to a full-faculty vote, so you will be hearing more about this matter as time goes on.
Ron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In case you can't wait until later in the week, here is the version of the proposal that was given to Senators at their last meeting on January 21: Constitution Revision Proposal.
At that meeting, the proposal was reported by our ad-hoc Constitution Committee and was sent to the Governance Committee for further review. If the Governance Committee has rewritten the proposal, I'll post the new version when I get it.
Okay, I probably won't need to post any new version coming out this week since our Faculty Senate Chair is going to mail it to us all.
After looking over the constitution, it would appear that the move from two senators down to one from each department is a central theme. I've heard comments on both sides and I think the one senator per department should be considered. Think about the faculty senate and how it is viewed in your department. Here are ten reasons to support the one senator per department policy. (Note: some of the comments are said facetiously just to make the point. Keep your sense of humor about you.)
1. Many departments have a hard time finding faculty members who are willing to serve because senate is viewed as a waste of time. Why waste twice as many people's time?
2. Various members of the senate are not very active or engaged. Why are some senate committees so popular -- something about easy duty?
3. Willing faculty are currently overloaded with service. It seems every week a new committee crops up. One senator per dept frees up other faculty members for other work.
4. The senate is looked at as a rubber stamp for university service. Put in your time then include it in your tenure portfolio. Is this good use of non-tenured faculty's time?
5. The senate is bigger than ever due to the increase in departments. Can there be positive debate with a larger senate? An increase in size doesn't usually increase efficiency.
6. How many senators really knew what the responsibilities were before their senate service? Decrease the number and increase the preparation to make it more meaningful.
7. Many non-tenured faculty members who get "stuck" on the senate are not really in a position to go up against senators regarding policy who are tenured full professors, let alone confront the administration on issues.
8. Ask your senator if he or she actually knows everyone on the senate? A smaller body of faculty members would become more effective in sharing ideas and issues.
9. Fewer faculty members on the senate should require more senior faculty members who have a firmer understanding of University policies and operations.
10. Wouldn't a smaller but more engaged senate be more effective?
Reduce the number of senators. Hold their feet to the fire, but give them a course release for a semester or so to make it worth their time. The senate would seem like a lot of work with all our university changes, but if we are just spinning our wheels then we need to let half the crew off the tread mill. I'm sure there are more reasons to reduce the number down to one, but this is a start.
Faculty Regent - I was told by my Senate representative that you seconded a motion by Terry Irons to kill the revised version of Senate Constitution. This was done at the start of debate before any actual work had been done. I'm trying to understand your reasoning for doing this. Can you please explain?
Post a Comment