PRESENT: Chesin, Sorrell; Cruz, José;Dutta,Suarav;Fox, Cynthia; Gulatee,Yenisel;

Governance Council Monday, April 13, 2015 3:00 PM UNH 306

Cynthia Fox, Chair

Minutes

PRESENT: Chesin, Sorrell; Cruz, José; Dutta, Suarav; Fox, Cynthia; Gulatee, Yenisel; Janiszewski, Caitlin; Malavasic, Jolene; Moore, Chris; Scheck, Helene; Zemel, Alan

The meeting convened at 3:07 p.m. once quorum had been reached.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of March 30, 2015 were unanimously approved.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Senate Chair Stefl-Mabry and GOV Chair Fox met with Chief of Staff Wirkkula and Provost Stellar on Monday, who expressed concern that there was so much contention in the Senate. They are very willing to help with ways to try to alleviate that. To open up the conversation so that people see the larger picture, the administration had talked about possibly funding the SEC members to attend the SUNY-wide Plenaries. Members were invited to comment on the April 6th Senate meeting, at which voting on the GOV report had been a major focus. A member noted that the feedback from people who were there was that they were befuddled and could not figure out why there was a big dispute. Another individual added that debate is important and useful, but it all seemed over trivial issues. A comment was made that it was difficult to follow Parliamentary procedure for voting on Senate council reports, and that Senators with their busy schedules may not have fully digested the material in those reports. It was suggested the process and consequences be clearly explained to the Senate in order to make it possible for a meaningful debate to happen going forward. Chair Fox explained that approval of reports is tacit. As long as people are not asking questions or raising concerns, they are considered accepted. However, approval does not have to be automatic, and setting up a debate is a way to voice disapproval. Chair Fox understood that if the Senate decided they did not accept GOV’s ruling, they could send the report for GOV to reconsider based on the new perspective of the Senate debate. There was a second issue about quorum. Senator Fessler had brought up that she could not not vote if she had wanted to – in order to not be counted toward the quorum required for the Bylaw amendment. The Senate meeting veered away from the questions raised about the GOV report, so that some had no idea what the argument was. People did not stick to the issue but instead raised other concerns. A member added that the larger issue that maybe was reflected in the “flawed” survey was in the functioning of the Senate. There was not a forum to debate the Bylaws amendment, even though the Council reports were duly submitted. A couple of takeaways that may be useful were that members are very busy and do not always have time to digest what is in the reports, and that it might be useful to explain to members what the expectations and consequences are for accepting or not accepting the reports. Another individual voiced having felt the frustration with Parliamentary procedure. It was noted that UUP Chapter President Benjamin was not allowed to speak, though he was one of the authors of the letter endorsing the Bylaw amendment and requesting a “yes” vote, and surely had something to say to clarify or address some of the concerns voiced. There may be a mechanism to suspend Robert’s Rules and just have a discussion with comments and questions. That discussion too, however, could get unwieldy. It was thought one of the problems was the idea the conversation should be about something specific. That seemed to be why Parliamentarian Howard pushed to keep the GOV report the topic of discussion. Another individual commented that the lack of clarity and chaotic way of getting to the point was a reflection of what has been going on behind the scenes for those who were involved. Chair Fox agreed, noting that she had had to forward GOV three different extended email threads in order to provide all the relevant background, not to mention that actions were being requested during a holiday weekend. The Chair wondered at what point we recognize that we have other business we need to attend to. That is why she had made the point that none of the GOV members had been contacted, so it was hard to tell how many people were upset. The fact was the minute that the amendment went to the voting faculty on March 10th, it was open for discussion.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Start-up NY Advisory Committee Careful consideration was given to the request to recommend a delegate and alternate. Individuals would be contacted with the request prior to forwarding the recommendations. The issue was raised that the process for including students on committees had been inconsistent and that perhaps it could be suggested recommendations come from GOV or to GSA. For this committee, it was recommended the Vice President of the GSA Executive Board be recommended.

Charter Amendment to remove Ex-Officio Voting Privileges Revisions were made to 1) address and clarify different categories of ex officio members, 2) ensure I was in line with the Bylaw amendment, and 3) to address updates to name changes in i.e. colleges and titles. A motion was made and unanimously approved that the amendment was ready to be forwarded to the SEC for consideration. A GOV member was to be considered to be nominated to serve on the Committee on Council Nominations. The Council would meet to select from among the volunteers and recommend who will be chosen to populate the councils and committees for the coming academic year.

Formal consultation: Renaming of CCI The formal consultation issue was reconsidered after reviewing prior examples of name changes, mergers, etc. and in light of the information from the SEC debate. The items overall went through the Senate, except for some instances in the recent past. As a point of clarification, the name change was considered separate from the original proposal of which it had not been a part. The name change would affect the entire college and not just a department. Chair Fox had noted GOV was not consulted in relation to formation of this college. A motion was made to approve GOV’s recommendation that in order to satisfy formal consultation, the proposal for the renaming of CCI should go to GAC, UAC and then to the Senate as a bill. The motion was approved, with one abstention.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Elisa Lopez, Recorder