|TO:||Members of the Faculty|
|FROM:||Beheruz N. Sethna|
|RE:||Response to Senate Actions|
Following is my response to the actions of the Faculty Senate as represented in the minutes of the meeting of February 26, 1999, which were approved at the Faculty Senate meeting on April 23, 1999.
Item a) Undergraduate Academic Programs
I accept the motion, subject to the following stipulations, which reflect the Senate discussion:
The issue of whether all academic certificates should come to the Senate for approval is a matter for debate by the Faculty Senate at a future meeting. The current endorsement does not imply that such approvals should or should not appear before the Senate.
The current endorsement does not imply presumption of approval of a program (or minor) should the Accounting Department wish to petition for such a program at some future date.
In all communications, the Accounting Department will phrase the final statement to reflect the discussion at the Senate meeting, which was in favor of deleting references to "5th year" and "post-baccalaureate work."
Motion to accept modifications in the Post-Tenure Review policy, as stated in the minutes, was passed.New Business:
I accept the above motion.
The problem regarding the distribution of Senators among the committees that Dr. Sharp explained at the last meeting has been investigated. The first issue to clarify is that corrections, or changes of any sort, in the rules governing the distribution of Senators no longer require a change in the University Statutes since all of the By-laws and rules of the Faculty Senate have been moved to the University Policies and Procedures manual when the Statutes were last revised.
The error in the original Statutes, which has been corrected in the latest Policies and Procedures manual but was not in the Executive Secretary's roster, is a discrepancy between the description of the total number of Senators and that of the composition of the standing committees. The Statutes required a total of 28 Senators with two coming from the library and twelve from Arts and Sciences, but the Statutes also placed the library on three committees, thus violating the other senate rule that no Senator may serve on more than one committee, and Arts and Sciences on eleven committees, thus leaving one Arts and Sciences member in limbo.
In revising the Statutes and creating the Policies and Procedures manual, it was ascertained by the revision committee that the Learning Resources Committee was the one erroneously described and thus was changed to take out one Senator from the Library and add one from Arts and Sciences.
Accordingly, Section 2.F.2 of the newly revised Policies and Procedures correctly reflects the current practice. This may be viewed on the University web site at the following address:
Finally, please recall that Section 2.C.5 states that a committee will evaluate the Senate composition and representation every five years.
5. The appointment of the Senate shall be reviewed every five years
by an ad hoc committee appointed by the President. When revisions
in numbers or representation are made, the terms of newly elected senators
shall be modified, if necessary to one-year, two-year, or three-year terms
to maintain a balanced rotating membership among units.