The Faculty Senate voted to send a resolution regarding the naming of the new honors program building back to ISU President Gregory Geoffroy as it is written.

At the senate’s meeting Tuesday night, members discussed the resolution to rescind the name of the Martin C. Jischke Honors Building. Geoffroy originally said he must disagree with the action recommended in the resolution, stating he thought it would be inappropriate to ask the Board of Regents to reverse its decision, which was made more than a year ago, on the naming of the building.

Tom Emmerson, professor of journalism and mass communication, raised questions about the senate’s ability to forward the resolution directly to the Board of Regents for approval. Senate President Christine Pope said it was a Board of Regents’ policy that the faculty of any university must communicate through the university president.

The resolution was originally proposed by Carl Mize, associate professor of forestry; John Robyt, professor of biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology; and Richard Hall, professor of forestry. Mize proposed an amendment to the resolution that supported naming individual rooms in the building after former administrators.

“It is difficult for the Regents to undo a decision without coming to an intermediate point,” Mize said. “I think this is a compromise.”

The senate also voted on a resolution to change the current policy for the Advisory Committee on Naming Buildings. The current policy states that in general there should be a five-year waiting period before a building can be named after a former university administrator. It also says that exceptions can be made in extraordinary cases.

The Senate decided to reword the policy so that it explicitly says that no exceptions can be made.

“The policy is that we don’t name things for people who have worked here until after five years, but if you put in the policy a way to get around it, it doesn’t make any sense,” said Bill Robinson, professor of philosophy and religious studies. “It strikes me as ludicrous.”

The senate also voted on a recommendation that the provost re-affirm the existing Dead Week policy that is found in the university bulletin. The Government of the Student Body brought this policy to the attention of the Senate with its own version of a Dead Week policy. The Senate considered this policy, but decided to re-affirm the existing policy.