A strict adherence to parliamentary procedure provided a solid beat for Tuesday’s Faculty Senate meeting, held in the Memorial Union Sun Room. The Faculty Senate voted to revise its open meeting policy, eliminating many rules that they felt were not being followed. The new policy says the Senate promotes the principle of open meetings but doesn’t always require them. The senate also voted to discontinue the M.S. in Business program, but the focus of the meeting centered on Faculty Handbook Section 3.4, dealing with termination of faculty and elimination of departments. The senate decided 56-5 to postpone the vote on proposed changes to the particular section.

“The administration is not trying to get rid of faculty,” Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Hoffman said. “As someone who has won the Defender of the First Amendment Award, I take the importance of tenure very, very seriously … That is not the intent of this.”

Initially, it was proposed that the vote on the proposed changes be contingent on the passage of the Memorandum of Understanding. This document, developed jointly by the Faculty Senate and central administration, was created to be in effect until June 30, 2012. It gives detailed explanations of academic program membership, criteria and procedures for eliminating an academic program, good faith efforts to prevent loss of faculty and appeals in cases of transfer and termination.

After some initial debate, Steve Porter, associate professor in educational leadership and policy studies, made a motion to postpone the vote on these changes until the March 9 meeting, when the Senate is slated to vote on the Memorandum of Understanding.

“We’re giving up a lot of power here, and a lot of history … in terms of what tenure actually means,” said Joel Geske, associate professor of journalism and mass communication.

Geske suggested a “friendly amendment” to postpone the vote on Section 3.4 indefinitely, which sent the Senate into a debate about parliamentary procedure.

Further debate focused on the element of time, as Geske pointed out that a decision need not be reached in the next year, since the Memorandum of Understanding would not go into effect until 2012. However, Porter stressed the importance of making a decision that would provide a guideline for deans and administration as they faced the budget cuts.

The standards for parliamentary procedure were clarified, and the senate voted on Porter’s original motion to postpone the vote until next month’s meeting.

The senate then moved into the Committee of the Whole, which allows for free discussion without motions, votes or amendments.

Most of the debate focused on Section 3.4.2.2 — “Termination of Tenured Faculty Due to Elimination of Academic Programs.” Questions from faculty members revolved around what rights are being given up, and why there is a need to revise the current policy.

“All of this smacks [to] the need to continue the institution, as opposed to the need to protect the individual well-being of its members,” Tony Townsend, associate professor of logistics operations and management information systems, said.

According to Section 3.4.2.2, tenured faculty members could be eliminated if programs are discontinued “for academic reasons.” The proposed policy says that “before proceeding with termination, the university and faculty member are expected to make good-faith efforts to transfer the affected faculty member[s] to another college or department with an academic program where their professional services can be used effectively.”

Townsend brought up the possible issue of departments preferring to hire new, more specialized professionals rather than a transfer from a discontinued program. “We were promised employment by the university, not employment by the department,” he said.

“I think tenure means something greater than that. I refuse to believe that there’s anybody in this university that’s a tenured member of our faculty that can’t make a meaningful contribution someplace else on this campus.”

Senate members and administrative officials both said they’d like to find a policy that they both could agree on. Geske suggested senators use the postponement to go back to their departments and gather more information and opinions in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding.

Paul Tanaka, university counsel, said that “it’s never good to make a long-term policy in a crisis.”

In his comments for the good of the order, President-elect Michael Owen, sitting in for President Arnold van der Valk, stated his appreciation that the faculty has an “opportunity to talk about these very difficult changes that are facing the university.” Owen also said that the policy change will affect the student body as well as faculty.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” Owen said. “We’re working as collaboratively as we can with administration and vice versa and we’re thankful for that, but we’re not done by any stretch.”