Faculty senate members walk out after heated debate

GLENN LANDBERG/THE ARBITER Vice President Lynn Lubamersky discusses the possible outcomes of the policy change.

The proposed revision addressed the threat of exigency and the need for shared governance.

The American Association of University Professors defines exigency to be “an imminent financial crisis that threatens the survival of the institution as a whole and that cannot be alleviated by less drastic means than the termination of tenured faculty appointments.”

Shared governance implies changing the delegation of authority from the chief executive officer to a procedure allowing for faculty input and formal due process.

Business and Economics College representative, Gary McCain, opened the discussion by a motion to reject any change to the exigency policy.

“There is no sense to make a revision if we agree with this policy,” he said. “I believe when we write our own institutional policy it will give us more protection than the State Board of Education can provide.”

Drafting an institutional policy to further protect employment is next on the faculty senate agenda. It will clarify and define circumstances of financial crisis, budgetary units, faculty tenure salary ties and reinstatement procedures.

Social Sciences and Public Affairs representative, Bob McCarl, stated a revision was not required.

“We already have the power and the right to make changes if we feel they are necessary,” he said. “We need to send a message to the State Board that we stand with other universities and we retain the right to move independently – if we so choose.”

Education representative, Roger Stewart, presented the alternate viewpoint of going with the proposed changes.

“We have the opportunity to craft our destiny,” he said. “The cup is half full, not half empty. I have compared the documents and this is a very doable compromise.”

Health Science senator, Sara Alten, agreed with Stewart and suggested full participation of the senate.

“If we don’t participate, it may happen any way, and it will look like we didn’t care,” she said.

A roll call vote was taken resulting in the majority favoring the proposed change.

Vice President Lynn Lubamersky said if they proceeded in changing the policy, faculty members would be upset.

“I think this is too important of an issue and we are too divided as a senate,” she said. “If we can look at this policy, all faculty members should be able to, as well, so they can decide if this will be a good thing for them or not.”

Alten rejected the idea, stating involving faculty members would be unfair.

“This has been a three month process,” she said. “They don’t have the full background, the e-mails, and all the discussions.”

Ex Officio senator, Craig Hemmens, disagreed stating faculty members should participate.

“We all have Ph.D.’s,” he said. “We don’t need a trail of e-mails. We can ask the question – do you like it or do you not – it’s that simple.”

Accusations of biased presentations were answered by claims of anti-social behavior as several members left the room.

President Owen McDougal responded to questions regarding quorum, voting by proxy and proper procedure after an attempt to vote by the eight remaining senate members failed.

“We can’t justify this vote based on who is here,” he said.

The next faculty senate meeting is scheduled for Dec. 8, one day prior to the State Board of Education meeting. The possibility of faculty and staff input was effectively eliminated by the senate members walk-out.

Related Posts:

1. Legality of faculty contracts in question
2. Faculty senate seeks legal counsel
3. Faculty faces loss of employment protection
4. Faculty senate wants change for student grade appeal
5. BSU faculty senate debating decrease in credit requirement for graduation.