November 20, 1998
*The following amendment to the Faculty Board of Review: Minimum Standards for Uniform Hearing Procedure passed:
Amendment: "The Faculty on each campus, through its governance system, shall establish the conditions under which the procedures for its Faculty Board of Review hearings will be open or closed." (Circular U6-99) (Agenda Committee)
*Discussion of Promotion and Tenure procedures for multi-campus units. This item was referred to UFC Faculty Affairs committee.(Circular U5-99) (Agenda Committee)
Just an early reminder that IUN will host the April 13, 1999 UFC meeting."
Fac: does the draft include an article on a Faculty Senate?
Rominger: yes, but that is not all of the document. The Committee might have a draft ready in January. There is less emphasis on changing the document then on clarifying the document. We request input from interested parties. Please see J. LaReau, K. Schoon, R. Votaw, M. Sheldon, F. Caucci, or myself.
Fac: what will be the voting procedure when the document is finished?
Rominger: that hasn't been established. We plan to have hearings on the draft for feedback and revision before voting.
Fac: is it possible to void the entire Constitution?
Rominger: the current Constitution has many contradictions and the working needs to be clarified. There's just so much change needed that the entire document needs to be rewritten.
Fac: how we're going to vote on this is the issue. Perhaps we'll decide that 51% of the Faculty must vote out the whole Constitution. There is more than one way this can happen, but it has to be debated.
Fac: but an article on a senate is being written?
Fac: I recommend the Committee write an article for a faculty organization in case the senate article is defeated.
Fac: the original motion which created this debate was confusing. It included the concept that the current Constitution needed revision and the idea of a senate.
Rominger: an article for a senate will be presented and if it is defeated then the Committee will start again.
A motion was proposed and seconded that: The Constitution Committee produce two articles, one for a senate and one for an organization.
Fac: will each part be voted separately?
Rominger: we'll have to vote on the whole document
Fac: so how can we vote on just the senate question?
Rominger: wouldn't be able to vote on just one if this motion passes; you'd be voting on two constitutions.
Fac: how would we do that? We could have any number of constitutions.
Fac: people attending the open forum on this issue, which was sponsored by the union and preceded this meeting, were opposed to the senate idea. Therefore, I support the motion. Might be a good idea to vote article by article.
Fac: I'm dismayed that there was so little discussion on the senate issue prior to the question being called. The Committee seems to interpret the resolution as a charge to create a senate.
Rominger: all kinds of documents can be referred to as a senate, but until you see a document it's hard to vote. The Committee's charge is to come up with a proposal and there will be hearings.
Chair: the Committee was charged with exploring a senate. How can we debate a senate until we have a document?
Fac: we can debate the concept of a body of the whole versus a representative body
Fac: seems we should debate now before the Committee starts writing
Fac: that assumes debates would resolve the issue, but it would be better to see something before a debate
Fac: what's the rationale for changing to a senate?
Rominger: this was distributed to you in September and is on the Organization's web pages. A senate would be more efficient, get more done and preserve faculty voice. More than anything, it has to do with how meetings are conducted. It doesn't mean only selected people will represent the faculty, there will be total faculty involvement in some form.
Fac: minority points of view will lose their voice. We need to discuss the general issue of representation versus organization.
Fac: if the senate idea were defeated it doesn't mean the Committee would have to start all over again, but there would have to be changes.
Fac: how is the committee getting input?
Rominger: we have asked for the faculty's input, and gathered documents and feedback from other campuses, and there will be hearings.
Fac: the concern isn't over input, but hearing the rationale for going to a more exclusive decision making process, regardless of what we call it. There's a real attachment to this grassroots organization.
Rominger: it's really a difference in process; every division might elect a representative and items would be discussed at the division level. There would still be lots of discussion, but at a more local level, and there would still be a provision for the faculty to met as a whole.
Amendment to the motion: The Constitution Committee produce two articles, one for a senate and one for an organization, and provide a forum for full discussion and debate before moving forward.
Fac: there should also be something about how the vote would be conducted.
Fac: are we talking about 2 articles or 2 constitutions?
Fac: the committee seems committed to a senate
Rominger: the Committee was charged to write a new Constitution; it does not care which way it is written, we trust the faculty to debate that issue. The Committee is committed to revising the Constitution to clarify and enhance consistency.
Fac: I withdraw my friendly amendment
The following Substitute Amendment was proposed and seconded : The Constitution Committee produce two documents, one addressing senate governance and procedure and another comparable to what we have now, and that hearings be conducted addressing the issue of senate versus organization before preparing a final draft.
Fac: there are two issues: the constitution and representation
Fac: still some question on how these documents would be voted on, therefore, debate is even more important.
Fac: how can we get a 2/3 majority when voting on two constitutions?
Fac: I support seeing two documents before debating
The question was called and the motion defeated 15-20
Fac: why are we doing this if we are changing the Constitution?
Rominger: this started last year. Any changes adopted would be incorporated into the new Constitution
It was moved and seconded to bring the motion off the table.
Rominger: sections B.2-3 have been reworded for the Organization's consideration
Fac: the conflicts of interest section should include statements about personal enemies. What is a personal friend?
Rominger: the document can not address every possible situation, that is covered by the statement "includes but not limited to."
Fac: what about saying "may include?"
Rominger: that would make things discretionary decisions
Chair: this is in line with the Academic Handbook
Fac: personal friend need further clarification. How about "personal or professional interest in the outcome of the Board's decision?"
Fac: we all have a professional interest
Fac: the problem is that the person deciding if there's a conflict of interest is the individual Board member, it should be the Board who decides if there's a conflict of interest.
Moved and seconded to send the document back to the Committee for corrections of typing errors and rewording of section 2.A.4.4.