Dear University Senators and Colleagues,

I’ve some thoughts relating to the urgent Resolution discussed an adopted this past Monday by the Senate Council acting for the University Senate.  The Resolution concerned the Board’s 02/23/2024 CR1 action that in its current wording either abolishes the University Senate or makes it (and each college/dept. faculty body) a hollowed shell with no longer its heretofore long-held, respective decisional vote on University "educational policy.”

1. Management Colleagues Need to Resolve ‘Resource Perception’ Issues Before a Proposal Reaches the Senate.

It needs to be clearly understood that many of the contentious issues that happen at the Senate meetings actually are managerial area issues (that the Senate only recommends/advises on, e.g. unit name change, unit merger, degree reporting line; University enrollment numbers).  These managerial area issues are driven by a budget model that places, or is perceived to place, colleges in competition for students/resources.  The management area apparently has not used a consistent process among deans/provost to get these ‘resource competition’ issues/perceptions resolved before the matter even gets to Senate.  E.g., the name change proposed last year for a college… the then-dean resisted reaching out to sufficient other colleges first to resolve perceptions of competing missions, before it reached the Senate, where the Senate was only recommending on that matter anyway.  But because the resource/mission perception issue had not been resolved by the management area (which has closed deans/provost meetings), it bubbled up when the Senate’s recommending role was reached, where the Senate/Senate Council meetings are open.  Similar situations of ‘resource perceptions’ have occurred adjacent to areas the Senate does make academic policy decisions,’ (e.g. new/change/close of courses and programs; academic criteria for admissions, academic calendar; charge/procedures for appeal/hearing committees on faculty contract/tenure dismissal).  Historically, the Senate/Senate Council would like to focus on the pedagogical decisions but, being the open format, become the available transparent format where swells in unresolved ‘resource perception’ issues.

Our management colleagues need to devise a way that managerial conversations consistently happen among deans/provost to resolve ‘resource perception’ issues before a new course/new program reaches the Senate, so the Senate is focused on its deciding about the pedagogical policy and doesn’t become the format to swell in ‘should have been resolved in advance by management’ resource perception issues.  The Senate tries to ‘prompt’ our management colleagues to do this, by the Senate Rules' (laudable) requirement that a new program proposal include a statement of ‘administrative feasibility’ by the dean of the college that will resource the degree.  But the Senate cannot ‘make’ the management area do the lifting on effective resolving of cross-college ‘resource perception’ issues.  It is not the Senate’s fault if management was not effective on resolving ‘resource perception’ issues before the pedagogical policy proposal has reached the Senate. The ongoing discussion about effective Senate-Administration coordinative harmony needs to include this component.

2. Students Losing Their Policy-Decisional Vote?

Amongst those who would lose their decisional vote on University-level educational policy, if the Senate is abolished or hollowed out to only being advisory, are the University students, who elect voting representatives to the University Senate and Senate Council.  When the Board of Trustees in 1970 conferred a primary policy decisional role to the Senate (again, decisional, not 'substantive' input/advisory), there were not in the Senate the elected voting student senators.  In 1971, the Student Government Association realized the significance of obtaining voting membership in the educational policy-deciding Senate, and with the faculty senators’ concurrence and Board approval, the students gained their voting senators, that they've had up till now.  There are occasions in Senate/Senate Council history when the student senators vote made the difference in the University educational policy outcome.  With the current Board CR1 wording, the student senators and their successors will have lost, along with the faculty senators, the decisional voting on University-level educational policy that their forebearers secured for them.

3. Time of Senate/Senate Council Meetings re: Identifying a Time Most Inclusively Available to the Most Faculty

Historically, prior to 1970 the regular Senate/Senate Council meetings were Mondays 4-5:00 p.m.  During 1970, there were many substantive meetings involving pedagogical Senate decisions on the burgeoning number of degrees that occurred during the 1960s curricular expansion, as well as what University organization would be most effective (15 Senate meetings were held in 1970).  In that environment, the regular Senate meeting schedule in fall 1970 doubled its meeting length, moving up to Mondays 3-5:00 p.m.  In the decades since, there have been pertinent changes that impinge on the ‘best’ time to schedule Senate/Senate Council meetings.  These include the density of class scheduling at the various times of the various days of the week; work-life circumstances; additional faculty series with their respective parameters (e.g. Lecturer Series; Clinical Title Series).  It would seem timely and reasonable for the University Senate, as a matter of internal process and inclusive consult, to assess what Senate/SC meeting schedule going forward would make Senate/SC participation most inclusive of the most faculty. Similarly, the deans/provost must recognize and allocate paid faculty DOE time for faculty Senate service; many faculty are effectively ‘salary-penalized’ for Senate service.

Just my thoughts.  Thanks for your patient reading.

Davy

Davy Jones, Professor Emeritus

Dept. of Toxicology and Cancer Biology

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40506