UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
FIFTH SENATE REVIEW COMMISSION
RESULTS OF SURVEY OF FACULTY AND STUDENT SENATORS
ON PERCEPTIONS OF THE SENATE
November 1999
86 Faculty Senators (200)
11 Student Senators (50)
3 Undesignated
1. What is your personal perception of the following statements?"As an institution, the Senate has a great deal of influence with the campus administration, the University administration, and the Board of Trustees over matters relating to the governance of the campus."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 2 28 11 37 22
"The Senate has a great deal of influence with the campus administration on matters of curriculum, education policy, and education programs."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 14 50 6 21 9
"The Senate has a great deal of influence with campus administration on matters of faculty rights and terms and conditions of employment."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 7 30 13 32 18
"The credibility of the Senate leadership is generally greater than that of the Senate as a whole."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 8 31 28 23 9
2. Please add any comments you would like to make on the issue of the credibility of the Senate.
Everyone recognizes the impotence of the Senate. Low participation is a function of low credibility and low significance. The Board of Trustees thinks we have less to contribute than the students.
A lot of the students on this campus consider the Senate to be a joke. "Can we really get anything done?"
I believe our credibility, or lack of, is entirely people driven, i.e., when we have good leadership it's fine. It only takes 1 or 2 "weak" leaders and 1 or 2 weird members to negate our efforts.
I think that the Senate is somewhat credible overall, but faculty feel that they are much more important than they actually are. Faculty members, which I have worked with totally disregard student opinion. I think that student senators are repeatedly denied the ability to have equal influence over discussion.
The Senate is an outmoded and largely useless institution. People are reluctant to serve. Being a senator is perceived as a waste of time, completely unrewarded. I agreed very reluctantly to serve when it became clear that no one else in the department would volunteer. There was no election. I was simply appointed-with great haste in order to spare the department embarrassment.
The Senate is mainly used as a way of legitimizing actions that administrators would like to institute.
I think the Senate as a whole is very credible, and I am proud to be a part of it.
The lack of credibility stems from the issues the Senate addresses as much as from its response to them; most Senate activity is routine oversight or nit picking which most people, perhaps wrongly, regard as trivial or insignificant. People judge the Senate by the issues it spends its time on, and finds them, and it, insignificant.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, Item 1#4 is ambiguous. From the campus administrator's perspective, they know best the Senate leadership.
The committee process is difficult in itself because all issues take longer so often the added length of time diminishes interest. And, then in cases where the Senate makes a recommendation and the document sent forward is not exactly what most in the Senate agreed upon (for whatever reason) then we appear fractured. This then, sends a very clear message that we are not unified. This then encourages non-participation.
I wish the Senate were more credible in the eyes of the administration.
The Senate will not become credible until accountability from the campus leadership to the Senate is established. Presently, the Senate has no oversight or control over University administration and the situation worsens.
The fact that there are never adverse consequences to the administration from ignoring Senate mandates demonstrates our fatuity.
The Senate credibility is not really the issue. The issues are that 1) the Senate has no say in the important matters of the University, and 2) that the Senate does not promote academic excellence (research and teaching). For example, the tuition and overhead rates were hiked without the Senate even being notified.
It's okay. Power struggle. Sometimes administration wins, sometimes Senate.
While leadership is critical, its credibility cannot surpass that of the Senate as a whole, in the end it is Senate votes that approve changes in policy, statutes, etc.
Lacks support from University administration and Board of Trustees.
Senate is not attracting the right people-influential faculty and deans.
While the Senate seems to have strong input in curricula and educational programs, it is not cohesive enough to make an impact in rights/employment issues. Maybe it is not necessarily a problem of "credibility," perhaps the structure of the Senate is designed not to have an impact on such issues.
Since the Chancellor appoints committee chairs, the committees of the Senate are organized to serve the chancellor and not the students and faculty. Get rid of the administration's "point men" in the Senate.
The credibility of the Senate is directly proportional to the credibility of each individual senator in his/her department. If the leaders in a department do not stand for election, that diminishes the credibility of the Senate in the eyes of a department. It is amplified if this happens in a majority of departments.
While it is important to encourage debate and allow time for diverse points of view to be aired, too often it seems that sessions are dominated by people with very specific agendas/interests, who seem reluctant to acknowledge the environment in which universities function now and the challenge in balancing faculty interests with the legitimate concerns of other constituencies.
The Senate is run by a few male professors who appear to be institutionalized senators and who thrive on protocol and hearing themselves talk.
We get so bogged down in details and rehashes of each senator's favorite topic that we miss the big picture.
The Senate is credible, it's the administration that lacks credibility!
Senate is viewed by administration as a rubber stamp for their decisions. Classic example is Senate caving into administration pressure to adopt current fall semester calendar.
When you spend most of your time on the trivial, how can you command respect and influence?
The Senate will not get any credibility until it makes its own agenda, and stops rubber-stamping administration proposals.
Little can be done to improve the credibility of the Senate until it can win a few issues with the administration on difficult issues or at least until the Senate takes a strong advocacy role with the administration on some of the "hot" issues raised by a few senators.
As long as the Senate has no real power, its credibility will be negligible.
Credibility of the Senate declines when some senators make the Senate a forum for their personal agenda.
Credibility, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Generally, the campus administration takes the Senate seriously, although there are recurrent instances in which they are unaware of relevant statutes or campus guidelines. Generally, the faculty pays little attention to the Senate.
The low attendance of Senate meetings gives the impression, and perhaps some truth, of ignorance of senators. Often, resolutions passed by the Senate do not disseminate down to respective administrative units. There are few, not many, so-called "Senate junkies," for lack of a better word, who tend to run Senate affairs much like administrators, instead of truly represent faculty/student views.
The administration seems to ignore Senate resolutions much too often. However, they do respect the Senate on educational policy.
Appears too much rubber-stamping body. I have yet to hear a deep discussion on both the pro and con of an issue to be decided by the Senate (~3 years).
The credibility is compromised by a few highly vocal senators with personal agendas. These individuals come across as "wackos" who waste everyone else's time and distract the Senate focus on major issues.
The administration uses the Senate committee and other questionable procedures to bend or ignore Senate decisions.
The administration seems to ignore the Senate on important issues.
The power of the faculty re issues of governance and teaching has largely been usurped by administrators who continue to act autocratically and with little accountability to anyone but themselves.
3. Please provide any specific recommendations you have on how the credibility of the Senate might be increased.
Cut off the trivial, the fringe, the self-aggrandizing. The first reason we are not taken seriously is that we have no real power. The second reason is that we do not take ourselves very seriously. Changing the second reason may help the first.
The number of student senators should be increased as they currently have little influence over the process. My input has been repeatedly disregarded in committee and I feel that will continue to be a problem with student participation in the Senate.
Show it has real power, that it's important to the University's decision-making process.
More democracy, more willingness of Senate Council in particular to challenge administrators and Board of Trustees.
The credibility might be increased if we get more input from the faculty and students outside of the Senate. Perhaps we could open up the first Senate meeting of each semester to the public at large so that they could speak or add items to the agenda that they feel are pertinent. Personal invitations to faculty, students and leaders of organizations (especially minority ones that now feel under-represented) such as APAC, LaCasa Latina, etc.
Address significant, visible, and controversial issues and the Senate will get attention; address them well and the Senate will obtain credibility.
Credibility is earned, not bestowed. Then, if the Senate is to become more credible, it must become well-informed on issues and thoroughly/rationally study their impact on all constituents, not just a select or narrow groups interests. Until this is done consistently, I suspect its credibility (influence) will remain limited.
Streamline the rubber stamp business. Allow more time for discussions of issues.
We, as a group, need to refine our internal communication so that when information is sent forward (in spoken or written form) it definitely represents the committee. And, in cases where revision is needed or additional action is warranted, the committee must communicate with the entire Senate so that the larger body remains up-to-date. The broader issue is often that we (the Senate) take action and the Board of Trustees overrules us so it appears that we did not take action at all. If we communicate the whole body will have all of the information.
More faculty ought to be encouraged by their departments and by their head to participate in the Senate. We as faculty get little or no reward for service.
The Senate should have performance review input, even partial salary control, over administration. Votes of confidence and approval should be a prominent part of Senate oversight.
The Senate would gain credibility if it promoted the removal of nonproductive faculty and departments and supported departments of high research excellence. It would also gain credibility if it were actively involved in improving teaching in critical fields such as mathematics, and in increasing the teaching loads in departments that are weak in research but serve a large number of undergrads.
Administration is not going to be dictated to, if it can avoid that.
Obviously the Senate is credible only as long as the University administration makes it so.
Have Senate service taken into account for annual salary increase consideration.
University allocation of resources to Senate proposals.
Smaller executive committee, which meets more often; Deans become members of the Senate; Deans encourage the best faculty to participate; Senate have a formal role in developing research policy.
1) The UIUC administration must take the work and recommendations of the Senate seriously and work to implement the recommendations of the Senate; 2) Committees should choose their chairs; 3) Implement a comprehensive review of the UIUC administration to include changes in personnel numbers, space allocations, and all costs associated with the higher administration on the UIUC campus; 4) STOP scrutinizing the faculty and demand administrative accountability. For example, the UI administration has failed miserably to provide the monetary resources essential to the educational programs of the campus. If an assistant professor were to fail so miserably, he/she certainly would not be retained.
If the Senate focused on issues that matter to the majority of faculty, e.g., research policy, strategic issues of organization to allow for renewal of programs and areas, then there would be more participation by the leaders in all departments.
Somehow there needs to be more awareness of the very real accomplishments and hard work of the many Senate committees. I think too many people equate accomplishments of the Senate with what goes on at the monthly meetings.
It's my opinion that the Senate does not have much credibility with the Trustees and perhaps the campus administration. The issue of the "chief" is an example of the disregard with which the Trustees hold the Senate, although there are others.
1) No senator may serve more than five years; 2) an understandable summary of each point for discussion should be emailed beforehand so that each senator can advise his/her department and receive comments; 3) unless there is 75% attendance, the meeting should be cancelled; 4) a department whose senator does not attend regularly should be sanctioned.
If, when the Senate reaches a conclusion different from Administrative Wisdom, the leadership pushes the Senate's point of view to higher-ups, rather than acting as if the Senate's actions did not happen.
Process routine stuff (consent agenda) electronically to shorten agenda and allow lengthier consideration of important topics. Handle working tweaks similarly. Ban discussion of the Chief-it's over.
Reduce size of Senate by ½. Assert some influence over matters of curriculum, educational policy and education programs. Require committee membership and active participation for all senators. Increase publication and visibility of Code-this is a Senate controlled document and provides a strong basis for asserting control over student academic and other conduct.
Leadership!!
Basically advocacy-greater attention to have the Senate as a whole review items before final issuance rather than deferring to the Senates Conference.
Don't waste too much time on this-there is really no way to make the Senate a governing or legislative body with real power.
One strength of the Senate is the freedom of expression. Increasing credibility may not be desirable if it reduces freedom of expression.
Change the composition of the Board of Trustees to people who actually care about faculty input.
More proactive role in governance representing student and faculty interests.
Vigorously champion faculty and student rights, exercise wise leadership, and promote the betterment of the University.
Make "senator" a more "honored", "respected" or "awarded" position with higher stature and recognition than they are portrayed. Involve more faculty members as senators and avoid long-term standing of particular individuals on committees. Consider giving "time off" to other major committee chairs in addition to Senate Council Chair.
We do need to hold administrators' feet closer to the fire on resolutions. For example, resolution on the Chief and benefits have been ignored. Most faculty don't want to be in the Senate-either they feel the Senate doesn't do anything important, or it competes time-wise and a faculty member doesn't get compensated for service. The administration could reward service more. Senate leadership may need to spend more time advertising to the faculty what the Senate really does.
Smaller, but more active, Senate.
Attendance. Greater involvement of Senators at college level.
Get young professors involved and throw out some of the senators who have become life politicians.
Give the Senate the power to replace administrators.
Change the administrative review process so that faculty have the ability to meaningfully determine continuation of the evaluated administrator in that position. Change to Department Chair method of governance.
1. What is your personal perception of the following statements?"The lack of member participation in the Senate is a serious problem."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 13 48 8 24 6
"The Senate should attempt to find ways to encourage more Senators to participate in Senate meetings."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree No Answer 25 49 9 12 2 3
"The Senate would be more effective if more of its business were conducted in committees."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree No Answer 4 27 22 33 13 1
"The Senate should find ways to streamline its meetings."
Strongly Agree Agree Don't Know Disagree Strongly Disagree No Answer 18 36 11 27 5 2
2. Please provide any specific recommendations you have on how participation in the Senate might be increased.
Lunatic fringes of all political stripes "participate" in various groups, but most people chose not to join those groups because they have no credibility. Participation is not credibility. Drop the attendance rules, period. Do you have them in your class?
Pay the senators.
Let participation be rewarded. Make Senate a place where real, important decisions make people want to serve; right now you have to twist arms to get people to serve. Faculty perception is that real decisions are made elsewhere on campus-in the VC's office, in the provost's office for example.
When the Senate takes on larger issues (unionization, corporatization, protection of tenure, childcare, etc.) and moves beyond rubber-stamping, more senators will want to participate. Compelling participation in what most see as a marginal exercise akin to the charade of high school student government, seems to be cruel and unusual punishment.
Participation might be increased if there was more cooperation felt between the faculty and the students. Perhaps the students could be paired with a faculty member. They could meet to discuss issues coming up in the Senate, etc.
The floor of the Senate becomes a forum for whatever pet concern an individual senator may have, irrespective of its relevance to the issue under consideration. For example, when proposing that non-tenure track positions be permitted to have a 3-year term instead of a 1-year term, there were senators who decried the fact that the University had non-tenure track staff. This was NOT the issue under consideration, and their unrestricted ramblings wasted everyone's time. At a minimum, these kinds of comments should be referred to an appropriate committee.
It would be interesting to analyze the extent to which service on Senate committees relates to attendance at meetings of the full Senate-whether those involved in committee work are also more likely to attend.
Can we come up with a method for utilizing web-based methods for voting on issues, e.g., 1) 60% of the membership for and it is passed, otherwise it goes to a meeting; 2) invest more power in the Senate Council, but have a mechanism to poll senators using web-based methods.
Three resolutions, initiated by the faculty and passed by the Senate by overwhelming majorities in the past three years, must receive strong administrative support and implementation. These are: 1) extension of benefits to unmarried partners; 2) retirement of Chief Illiniwek; 3) implementation of the proposal to enhance benefits by a matching funds program. Each Senate committee (and not the chancellor) should choose its chair.
I know that many faculty may prefer to go home by 5:00 p.m., but personally I would find it easier to attend after 5:00 p.m. It would be trivial to find parking in University lots (no fumbling for change and looking for a free metered space). Also, there would be fewer scheduling conflicts. A token incentive should be given for attending after hours. Also, departments should reward active participation in the Senate.
Change the agenda so issues more important to faculty are discussed.
Stop having meetings that are a complete waste of time. The tedium, minutia, and self-serving interventions by senators are more painful than any other service activity in which I have participated at three universities.
Recognition for Senate service at departmental level. Delegation of small tasks to committees.
More controversial issues. Start talking about resource allocation-and they'll come.
Much business is already done in committees, shifting more would be counter productive. If faculty perceive that actions of the Senate are important, they will participate. So the best way to increase participation is to increase credibility.
Senate is seen as a rubber stamping body for routine matters. Only occasionally policy is made, then not implemented or not right away, e.g., foreign language requirement: 3 semesters for all at UIUC passed several years ago-not yet practiced.
Streamline meeting. Less restatement and vocalization of material already distributed to senators.
Use committees. New requirements for senators to attend actually reduced interest and participation. Experienced senators know when to be there and when it's wasted time.
A realization that Senate resolutions matter would itself elicit more participation. The Senate's capacity for damage to faculty effectiveness is generally underrated.
Too much of Senate meetings appear devoted to routine or even trivial matters. Priority items should be given priority. No presumption that committee recommendations will uniformly be followed should apply.
If the University-particularly its administration-really rewarded service, then participation in the Senate would increase. If the Senate took on really important issues, then more faculty would be moved to participate and attend its meetings.
As to streamlining, I think the meetings move along pretty well.
Break the larger group down into smaller units so that there is more "personal" atmosphere. This can even be done in the context of a full Senate meeting.
If committees are to be more involved, then more senators need to be placed on them. Meetings appear to be reasonably efficient, with good availability of reports, etc. prior to meetings. Issues that affect significantly our constituencies would bring more involvement. There is, however, detailed work as part of the business.
Too much time is spent on routine matters. Moving to a consent agenda on EPC matters such as curriculum revisions was a good step forward, but more can be done. Non-participation is primarily due to a sense that most of the Senate business is too routine to require attendance! I have discussed this with many senators and this is the dominant reason for all of them!
1) Give each department some kind of perq-like a 50% RA or $1000 in xeroxing if it can commit a senator and punish departments without participating senators; 2) it's a farce to have student participation-we ignore them and simply raise their tuition; 3) send a representative to each department to explain the Senate and its organization.
No more long speeches. We can read faster than we can listen. There's no need to waste our time by forcing us to be a captive audience to bloviating administrators or self-serving students, looking to pad their resume.
If the predictable people beating their predictable drums weren't there and the body were legislative, not advisory, it would matter. As is, it's a debating society for a tiresome minority.
Have the administration not shove things down our throats!
The lack of participation is an indication of a problem, rather than a problem in itself. The problem has to do with the question in Item A1.
Reduce Senate size. Put more teeth in newly adopted attendance policy. Promote Student Senate Caucus. Find better meeting room.
This rubric deals only with cosmetics.
Participation will increase with empowerment. Most senators probably think it makes no difference if they attend or not. They are mostly right about this.
The Senate's business must be perceived as important to the faculty. One idea: a brief newsletter to all faculty members on significant issues, with the names of the faculty who represent them in the Senate. The "Discipline" amendment might be an example.
Greater involvement in advocacy issues-if people see Senate taking positions they will be more willing to participate.
The consent agenda was a good move.
Don't reduce the number of committees-even a committee with narrow scope and few meetings can (1) carry out its assigned tasks and (2) serve as a starting place for new senators who want to participate.
I would assign all members to a committee (that meets!) to support more involvement early on. Well, actually, make it a forced choice, rather than an assignment-that is, being a member would require committee work-have the member choose a committee on which to work-forward names to chairs, have chairs contact them and ensure participation in committee meetings.
Open the Senate to all interested faculty and students.
The recent Senate resolution (Spring '99) about Senate attendance and active status should be sufficient-no further action seems warranted.
The above questions in #1 were the wrong questions, in my mind. Participation level is not too bad. More relevant question is "how can we get more faculty willing to serve?" Participation used to be better when faculty felt they had a stake. We could debate issues, for one. We could encourage Senate leadership in being tougher with administration. Recent Senate leadership has been too pro-admin and not enough pro-faculty. The Senate has become a place where admin. gets its agenda adopted, not a faculty agenda. We discuss administrative issues more than faculty issues. Recent (last five years) Senate leadership has "caved" to administration.
Electronic vote on most matters, and if the vote is not one-sided, bring to Senate floor. Bring issues of importance, and possibly contentious, on time to the senators.
Shorten meetings (by decreasing protocol). Develop agenda that makes senators feel like each meeting will deal with an important issue. Provide a less formal mechanism for comments and discussion of issues. But it is essential to realize that other educational obligations sometimes conflict!
The Senate has no influence at all. Its sole purpose is to provide a stamp of approval to decisions made by others. Faculty participation is a waste of time.
The meetings need to be shorter with less useless debate. Relatively routine and unimportant issues should be handled elsewhere than the Senate floor.
Give the Senate some real power-it currently has none-all its actions are muted by an overbearing administrative bureaucracy.
1. As we proceed with our work in suggesting strategies and mechanisms for increasing the effectiveness of the Faculty-Student Senate, what information or message would you like to convey to us?
The Senate needs to become a mechanism to promote faculty and student issues, make changes, facilitate faculty governance: not a forum for individual pet ideas, philosophy or trivia.
The students need more of a voice. After all, this institution (UI) exists for us students and because of us students.
Have all committees post (email) their minutes once they have been approved-this will expand member knowledge base on the mechanisms of Senate business.
Students are often unheard in the Senate.
Senate has long been perceived as a place where old wind bags hold fort endlessly on trivial matters. Recently we've had endless prattle about the Chief. It may be that when students were admitted to the Senate, it's importance diminished in the eyes of the faculty.
Limit time faculty can speak on individual issues.
Until something is done about the dead hand of the Senate Council (less power, more venturesome nominees), little progress can be made.
Both the faculty and the students need to be open-minded and really listen to the other's side.
The "town meeting" approach to the Senate is an unwieldy and inefficient way for the organization to operate. It discourages attendance by faculty with something (most anything) better to do than to sit and listen to individual senators ramble on about their pet peeves. I strongly recommend electronic meetings (that is, dissemination of committee reports, Senate Council recommendations, and the comments of faculty who have posted comments, be distributed to individual senators and that voting be by email). Limit meetings to matters that cannot be handled this way.
Consider how faculty come to understand their responsibilities/role in faculty governance. How is this presented in the academic staff handbook? At orientation for new faculty? In reports by senators to their constituents?
We need to start a dialog on the strategic directions of this campus. We are at a point in our history where we are almost stagnating because of our inability to react to new opportunities. I detect a fear of the administration to initiate change for fear of failure in changing organization, e.g., LAS has over 50 unit executive officers, no new departments have been formed in the Graduate college in 25 years, etc., etc.
The Chancellor, Provost and President of the University are NOT KINGS. Their roles are to serve and implement the policies of the faculty. There needs to be a comprehensive review of administrative procedures and policies to realign the UIUC administration with serving the educational interests of the students and faculty of this campus. The tail must cease to wag the dog!!
There is probably too much turn-around for the Senate to tackle long term problems or employment related issues. Only a few dedicated students have the time to attend meetings of committees. The Senate needs some restructuring, but this should be taken as a long term goal, with some careful study and understanding at the "functional" level rather than "political" level. Hire an external consultant to evaluate.
Time is my most precious asset. I don't attend most Senate meetings because they are time-wasters. Senate debate is not productive. Positions on various issues should be limited to written statements of limited length. The Senate hurts itself with such things as the Illiniwek issue and last spring's call for a quorum. Who has the time for such stuff?
University administration has far too many resources (salary, staff, facilities) and power in relation to the faculty.
Shared governance, find a way to get involved in running the University. Currently it is run by a group of administrators that have short term goals of their own.
The Senate has been relegated to near impotence: whenever the administration and Senate disagree on a course of action, the Senate is ignored. To change this requires more Senate power.
I am becoming afraid that when the Senate passes a resolution, and even when all the Senates pass the same resolution, that the President and the chancellors do not feel obligated to act on it. We are ineffective not only in the eyes of other faculty but also in the eyes of the chief University officers.
Many individuals do not believe that this organization can or will make an impact on important issues. We need to become more assertive both with our leadership responsibilities and our campus image.
Make more open the assignment of senators to committees. A more open process would, in my view, draw attention and participation of senators in involvement.
More of a consent agenda approach to routine business would be good. The Senate's primary activity seems to be oversight of items already reviewed at three different levels; are there no more substantial roles or issues in which the Senate can play a more direct or vital role?
I faithfully attend but I feel useless. Many issues discussed are matters for the courses and curriculum committees. The high administration of this campus needs to reclaim campus administration from the BOT. The BOT does nothing of use to the running of campus. Or, we need to have a massive vote (direct vote) so that we elect the BOT, not the governor. Many issues appear to be decided in committee before they're brought to the Seattle. They are almost a fait accompli.
Show us how the difference we make from our personal participation has a meaningful effect. We've all been in junior high-this isn't student council.
Consider setting agendas as only discussion items-all reports and consent agenda should be handled electronically.
Deal with the bloated, incompetent administration.
Fine ways to increase status of senators on campus, e.g., small salary supplements; certificates of achievement; letters of commendation to personnel files; secretarial assistance; publication of Senate roster on plaque in library.
"Strategies and mechanisms" -more cosmetics.
The interests of the Board of Trustees are not the same as the interests of the faculty and students. So-called leaders who play up to the Board and administrators betray our interests.
If the administration and Trustees actually paid attention to us, Senate seats would be more sought-after (rather than falling to those willing to be named) and then participation would improve. I think the Senate is effective as possible under the circumstances; restructuring to improve "effectiveness" would probably be a negative. One improvement might be direct election of Senate Council.
More business in Senate committees?-No-It is already perceived by some that all important business takes place in the committees and not on the Senate floor (a misperception, I believe, but still a perception)-streamlining of meetings-we do tend to get bogged down, but time for open debate is very important.
Rather than following ruse of endless attention to protocol, such as academic calendar, Senate should focus on faculty rights issues (e.g. non-reappointment of tenured faculty).
Direct election of the Senate Council is really needed.
The Senate is effective. We need to stop reinventing the wheel.
I've sat at the meetings for two years and have not seen any opportunity for involvement.
Must change the perception of the "Senate," making it an effective, respected, influential unit accountable to faculty and students, as well as "respected" by the administrators. Streamlining the structure.
The Senate needs to discuss faculty/student issues. The administration's concern with S3 is not very exciting.
Take Senate decisions serious.
Deal with the significant issues and not the trivial!
The Senate either needs to improve its operations, or it should be replaced.
The current vertical management style at this University must be abandoned.
2. What specific recommendations do you have on how we might change the Senate size, organization, structure, and operation to make it more credible, to increase participation, and to make it more effective.
Drop attendance rules. Make it bigger (more members), maybe by 2X. Drop the quorum size to those attending-no minimum. Any issues of actual substance will draw a crowd that is concerned. Trivia will be disposed of by the few.
Better student to faculty ratio would be a good start. Without us students, the faculty wouldn't have a job.
Increase number of students.
Reduce size significantly. Confine business only to important issues. Remove students.
Put a faculty senator on the Board of Trustees.
Get agendas to student senators earlier, so that they can be more prepared to voice their opinions.
Organizations like the FAC should be granted greater power. As long as they're supplicants whose advice can be ignored at "higher" levels, it's hard to take them seriously.
I think the Senate should be half faculty and half students, and that the number of students on the board should be equal to the number of faculty (disregarding the chief official). If people are given a definite role at the meetings, they will be more willing to come because they really feel a part of the organization. Let everyone state their opinions without cutting other people/bashing their opinion. That causes people to not come and to keep their opinions to themselves.
Simply having the work done in committees, considered by Senate Council, and referred to the members of the Senate for comment or a vote, as appropriate, could be done via email. Meetings could be restricted to only those topics that cannot be processed under an electronic meeting format.
Perhaps find a less spacious meeting site than Foellinger. Those attending might feel more engaged if they were not spread out in such a cavernous space.
I feel that we need to start with our agenda. Are we considering issues that are important to the faculty?
It is neither size, organization, structure or operation that dampen the credibility of the Senate. I believe that the lack of credibility lies with the fact that the UIUC administration will do whatever it damn well pleases in spite of Senate input. This practice of the UIUC administration is the problem. Until true shared governance is a reality, the credibility of the Senate, and willingness of faculty to actively engage in its roles will remain low. The administration must cease its adversarial, paternalistic stance!
Committees already do most of the work. Often I sit in the Senate meetings feeling that I am wasting my time, since so much has already been discussed and resolved in the committees, that approval by the Senate is almost obvious. There are now and then some controversial issues, but most of the time of little impact. Use more the web to advertise issues which require broad discussion, give more time for collection of feedback by senators (use a secure website) and allow votes in absentia.
Senate needs to include all faculty. A new small body, should be viewed as the policy-development body. A small executive committee should be responsible for establishing a strong collaborative relationship with the provost and with deans.
Any business that comes from committee with unanimity should be voted upon without open debate.
I don't think a larger Senate is the answer. Increased recognition of work being done might help.
I am not sure whether it is the size and structure of Senate that is problematic or lack of serious agenda that discourage senators from participation. I would suggest looking at organizational structure and the agenda (role of Senate) that the Senate needs to pursue.
I am not sure how to do this politically, but the Senate would make better decisions if it had a stronger weighting of faculty from top ranked departments and a much weaker weighting of faculty from weak departments. Also, there should be a mechanism to remove many departments altogether (through attrition and consolidation-not firing).
The Senate should be a Faculty Senate. Students have their own organizations and could create more if needed. The impatience of students with faculty rights problems and their need to deal with their own problems, such as increased vacation time, suggests the desirability of a split. Student input could be solicited on occasions where it was of value.
Meetings might be held in smaller quarters. Senate authority should be increased on matters vital to faculty.
Reward service in the Senate and on committees. Urge (force) University administration to listen to us.
The key here is that Senate action will have a positive effect on all concerned. If we as an organization can do some positive things I believe we will encourage leadership, participation, and credibility across campus.
Have meetings in a small room; smaller number elected to the Senate.
Perhaps the earlier approach of all faculty being members would stimulate participation. Certainly major issues would draw participation of all interested faculty.
Make it more significant in terms of the issues addressed, and streamline the routine business, and it will automatically become much more credible, enjoy much more participation, and be more effective. The size is fine; use your committees more effectively.
Stop disastrous "conference" compromises such as the one that would have been forced down our throats on "faculty sanctions short of dismissal," except for realertness of a few.
Maybe most faculty wouldn't cry if the committees survived and the body as a whole evaporated? Is the Senate an anachronism? I have found committee work rewarding, but the Senate as a whole a complete waste.
Money-it's great.
In reducing size, make sure small units have at least one representative, but reduce representatives of larger units by ½. This gets rid of dead wood and remaining people more involved; credibility increased. Finally, get changes in place for 2000-2001 academic year, particularly reduced size.
More cosmetics. The real question is "what issues will the Senate spend its precious time on? Will we discuss what it means to be a great University and then implement, as best we can, that objective?" Answer: "Of course not!"
The Senate should acknowledge and address matters under its jurisdiction, even if such matters are painful: 1) the status of faculty women on campus; 2) the overworked and underpaid TA's; 3) the desperate shortage of tenure-track faculty in some fields; 4) teaching loads of faculty on state money; 5) the gross disparity between salaries in the sciences and all else.
Current Senate size is appropriate despite difficulty of obtaining a quorum.
Don't conduct another survey in the near future. Participation wanes when the same issues seem to be reappearing over and over again.
Encourage/require participation on a smaller scale (committees) to increase participation.
Make all faculty on tenure track or tenured members of Senate.
Reducing size is advisable. Reduce number of subcommittees. Give "time-off" to major subcommittee chairs. Properly reward those senators with good participation record, instead of penalizing those inactive ones. Maintain frequent rotation of senators, committee members and chairs. Prevent "life-long," albeit willingly active, members.
The size is just fine.
As mentioned, smaller more active Senate, delegate certain right to committees, so that the entire Senate may not have to consider them.
Take Senate decisions serious.
Use an Executive Committee that is larger and more representative. Break up the "old boy" network that runs the Senate.
You would have to change departmental governance: 1) department chairs; 2) step-raise system with salary lines in accordance with rank.