Synopsis: The Senate
(1) passed Proposal 2-00, Amendments to Senate Proposal 12-95, Search Procedures for Deans and University Administrators.
(2) elected Bruce Rafert as the department chair representative to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Search Committee.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Seely called University Senate Meeting 318
to order at 5:32 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 September 1999,
in Room 642 of the Dow Environmental Sciences and
Engineering Building.
Vice President Soldan called roll. Absent were At-large Senators Dave Reed and Pete Tampas and representatives from Education, Fine Arts, Forestry and Wood Products, Humanities, Institute of Wood Research, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Institute of Materials Processing, Human Resources and Facilities Management, and Research and Graduate School/University Relations/Administrative Offices. Liaisons in attendance were Ted Soldan (Staff Council) and Anthony Moretti (USG).
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics) and
Pete Dressel (student).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Nordberg MOVED and Prince seconded the motion
to approve the agenda as presented. The motion to
approve PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
[Appendix A. NOTE: Only official Senate and Library
archival copies of the minutes will contain a full
complement of appendices.]
4. SENATE PROPOSAL 2-00, AMENDMENTS TO
SENATE PROPOSAL 12-95, SEARCH PROCEDURES FOR
DEANS AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS.
[Appendix B]
Seely offered opening remarks regarding the
background of Proposal 2-00.
Vilmann MOVED to abolish Senate Proposal 12-95. Seely suggested this may not be the best course of action. He said there are some issues that should be looked at, for example how staff members come onto the committee. The Senate should probably take the time at a later date to take a comprehensive look at the policy, but for now should consider making only the necessary changes. Ftaclas seconded the motion.
Barna argued against deleting the whole policy, indicating that most of it is useful as it is. Seely also argued against. Steve Carr suggested that 2-00 is not complete enough to replace 12-95. Vilmann wonders why there is a need for a policy that we have never used. Seely commented that during the Sellars search, the policy was not used by agreement with the Senate President and President Tompkins. Snyder argued that the procedures in the policy are necessary. The motion was defeated on a voice vote with no affirmative votes. Larry Davis MOVED to bring proposal 2-00 to the floor, and Williams seconded.
Seely went over the highlights of the proposal. He pointed out that section 1.1b added a department chair and the Senate President to the committee
Seely also noted that the administration indicated to him that the proposal would not be acceptable if search firms were precluded from being used in the process. That is why section 5.1 was added to the policy.
Green asked why the policy was changed to remove the alumni and community representatives and make the members at-large. Seely explained that the administration requested the extra flexibility in filling gaps in the committee, so the distinction that his two representatives be from alumni and the community were dropped.
MacLennan said she had assumed that Seely had written the proposal. Seely said he had written it and worked with Soldan. Seely said he had also worked closely with the executive committee on the crafting of the proposal.
Ftaclas commented that this is a great compromise. It came out well for us
USG representative Moretti asked about the phrase "In consultation with . . . " Does that mean he just has to let you know? Seely said he believes that "in consultation" means working toward a consensus. Consult with means listening to our ideas, and can accept them or not. Moretti suggested that the senate should vote on whether two additional members could serve. Seely responded that the administration feels that might not be workable. He also commented that the board thinks that both academic and administrative voices are necessary on the committee.
Visitor Dressel commented that section 1.1c seems to allows the President to add as many people to the committee as he prefers. He felt there should be some limit the number the president could add. Seely said he thinks it is best not to formulate policy based on worst case scenarios. Soldan said that when talking to President Tompkins, he mentioned a discussion he had had with Frank Rhodes from the Washington Advisory Group. Rhodes had told Tompkins that when he was president of Cornell, he chaired the selection committees for upper administrators, and appointed most of the members himself.
Seely wondered if a committee this large could function effectively.
Snyder commented that he had served on the committee that hired Provost Dobney. It had 18 members, and it bordered on the far side of large, especially when trying to find meeting times.
Green wondered how passage of this proposal effect the current search process. Seely said the senate should not do anything that would cast doubt on the integrity of any of the elected members. If this passes, the President would appoint Jim Cross and Gloria Melton, and would request of the senate to appoint John Sellars as his additional member.
MacLennan, said she felt that section 1.1c is the heart of the proposal. She doesn't feel the court of public opinion would be an adequate check and balance to stop the President from stacking the committee.
Sutter agreed 1.1c was the heart of the proposal. He said he had thought the committee as constituted by President Tompkins had seven too many members. Seely said the most it was ever over was four, but that was when it was thought that Eric Bloch had been made a member of the committee. Once that error was pointed out, it was clear that the committee was three over instead of seven.
Dressel suggested that section 1.1c might be changed to force a consensus vote by a group if the President wants to add people.
Ftaclas commented that someone needs to have oversight of the whole process. At least it opens a dialogue between the Senate and the president.
Davis noted that the Board of Control can change any policy at any time. Seely agreed. He went on to say that at least this policy defines a clear process that must be followed with consultation. Davis said that if this proposal doesn't pass, we will be stuck with the old version. Seely responded that there are three options. 1) President Tompkins would accept the Senate version, but appoint his members anyway, in effect creating a shadow committee with his appointments. 2) The Senate would accept this proposal, or 3) The Board might just throw out the policy and pass one more suitable to the President.
Nordberg agreed that basing policy on worst case scenarios is not a good strategy. He commented that with such a large committee, it would be hard for the President to add enough people to "pack" the committee. He felt that this proposal is a viable compromise.
Kunz stated that agrees with Ftaclas' sentiments. In the first place, we are looking for a senior administrator. He said he favored passing the policy to see if it works. The campus would lose if it became a battle of wills between the Senate and the President. We can always revisit the proposal at some later time if it proves unworkable. He also said that however the committee is constituted, the President can keep saying no until he gets a candidate he likes.
Drummer was never concerned about the President packing the committee. He felt that the President will have a shadow committee regardless of what the Senate does. Drummer felt he had to argue in principle against the motion.
MacLennan MOVED to strike 1.1c, second by Barna. Chavis said she thought it is appropriate to ensure balance on the committee.
Soldan said that when he discussed this issue with the President, he became convinced that someone needs to look at the entire committee at the end of the process to make sure that all constituencies are covered on the committee.
Hodek called the question. The motion failed on a voice vote.
Snyder said he likes the idea that Senate elects the department chair committee member. He said that in his experience, three groups on campus tend to forget that chairs are faculty, the chairs themselves, the faculty, and the administration.
Proposal 2-00 PASSED on a voice vote with dissenting votes.
Seely then said that the Senate needs to select a department chair to serve on the committee.
Barna MOVED and Kunz seconded the motion to nominate Bruce Rafert and Kirk Shulz as department chair representative on the Provost Search Committee.
There were no objections from the floor to treating this as an emergency proposal.
Bruce Rafert was elected as the department chair representative on a secret ballot.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Hodek MOVED to adjourn seconded by acclamation.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Ted Soldan
Vice President of the University Senate