Grundy Reporter

Illinois State Senate Committee on University Statutes and Senate Procedures met Nov. 8.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

Present: Chair Shawn Gilmore, H. George Friedman, Michael Grossman, William Maher, Collin Ruud, Joyce Tolliver, Kelli Trei

Ex officio: Jessica Mette, Sharon Reynolds, Jenny Roether

Absent: Walter Deering

Guest: Sarah Zehr (Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs)

I. CALL TO ORDER

A regular meeting of the Senate Committee on University Statutes and Senate Procedures (SP) was called to order at 11:00 am with Chair Gilmore presiding.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the October 25, 2021 meeting were approved as amended by roll call vote.

Yes: Friedman, Gilmore, Grossman, Maher, Ruud, Tolliver, Trei

No: None

Abstain: None

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

No requests received.

IV. CHAIR’S REMARKS

Chair Gilmore commented that discussions are continuing for SP.21.05 (Revision to the Bylaws, Part D.7 – Conference on Conduct Governance). The discussions include Chair Gilmore; Rob Kar, Chair of the Senate Executive Committee (SEC); John Dallesasse, ViceChair of SEC; James Shriner, Chair of the Conference on Conduct Governance; and Jenny Roether, Clerk of the Senate. A draft document will be shared with SP when those discussions have concluded.

Chair Gilmore reminded SP that an additional meeting was scheduled for next week (Monday, November 15, 11am) to focus on SP.22.01 (Proposed Revisions to the Statutes (USC ST-83)). He encouraged committee members to review the materials prior to the meeting.

V. OLD BUSINESS

SP.19.15, Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Article IV, Section 1 – The Department, Section 2 – Department Organized with a Chair, Section 3 – Department Organized with a Head, and Section 4 – Change of Departmental Organization

SP reviewed and discussed the revisions that were suggested. It was noted that the revisions are not substantive enough to require an additional first reading by the Senate.

Friedman made a motion to approve the proposal to be presented for approval at the November Senate meeting. The motion was seconded. SP approved the proposal via roll call vote.

Yes: Friedman, Gilmore, Grossman, Maher, Ruud, Tolliver, Trei

No: None

Abstain: None

SP.20.05, Revision to the Bylaws, Part D.8 – Senate Committee on Educational Policy and Standing Rule 13 – Formation, Termination, Separation, Transfer, Merger, Change in Status, and Renaming of Units

Prior to the meeting, Chair Gilmore shared an email from Linda Moorhouse, Chair of the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (EP), regarding how budget issues for proposals are handled by EP.

Chair Gilmore noted that the EP draft proposal dated 9/4/2021 and the SP draft proposal dated 1/22/2021 still differ quite substantially. He questioned if SP is satisfied with EP’s draft proposal or if there are additional revisions that need to be made.

Maher suggested that SP may want to consider combining sections #2 and #3 in the EP draft proposal. Grossman questioned if most of #3 is included in #2a. Chair Gilmore noted that #4 is mostly procedural.

Tolliver noted concern that the wording in #3 could allow a college to decide to suspend enrollment to a department so some clarification on the language recommended by EP is needed. Friedman commented that any proposal that could permanently suspend admission to a unit is not decided by an academic department, but the department would need to make a proposal for the advice and approval of the Senate. He suggested that it may need to be defined that proposals to temporarily or permanently suspend departments need to be treated as #2a states.

SP noted that there were past efforts to try to ensure that the Senate has a voice if a unit will be merged or terminated and Standing Rule 13 was created to provide that necessary oversight.

Chair Gilmore commented that the SP proposal dated 1/22/2021 included the phrase “prior to any attempt to implement.” He noted that the phrase needs to be included in the final draft proposal to clarify EP’s role.

Grossman noted that the last line of the preamble is incorrect:

In questions of doubt concerning the proper limits of this autonomy between the college and the senate, the Committee shall refer the matter to the Senate

Executive Committee.

He explained that the Statutes require that the committee shall refer the matter to the Chancellor, not the Senate Executive Committee. Statutes, Article III, Section 2.c:

“…The college has the fullest measure of autonomy consistent with the maintenance of general university educational policy and correct academic and administrative relations with other divisions of the university. In questions of doubt concerning the proper limits of this autonomy between the college and the senate, the college shall be entitled to appeal to the chancellor/vice president for a ruling.”

Chair Gilmore will prepare a draft document for SP to discuss at a future meeting.

SP.20.07, Revision to the Bylaws, Part E (Governing and Advisory Bodies) and Part F (Senate Representatives to Other Bodies)

No new discussion.

SP.20.23, Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Article I, Section 5 – Chancellors and Vice Presidents, Article II, Section 3a(1) – Faculty Role in Governance, and Article III, Section 1 – The Campus

SP discussed the revisions that were suggested at the October Senate meeting including the revision of “in consultation with the president” (line 22) and “in consultation with the chancellor” (line 51). Grossman reported that the subcommittee of Tolliver, Trei, and he discussed the suggested revision and determined the wording should not be revised.

Chair Gilmore noted that the language is regarding advising the president or chancellor and how the Senate handles its portion of the evaluation. Reynolds questioned if the Senate portion of the evaluation is a component of a larger evaluation. Chair Gilmore responded affirmatively.

Grossman commented that the Senate approved SP.19.14 (Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Article III, Sections 3 and 5, and Article VI – Dean, Director, or Campus Librarian) in April 2020 which addressed the performance of the dean in a manner to be determined by the faculty of the college, SP.20.23 was modified to enhance shared governance, including consultation with the president or chancellor during the formal review process. Friedman noted that this is a new procedure for a formal evaluation of the chancellor and provost so consulting the president or chancellor is logical. Tolliver commented that a consultation is completed annually but the formal evaluation is only completed once every five years.

Friedman noted that the president is always able to consult with any other stakeholders for the formal evaluation and the language does not preclude that option.

Chair Gilmore noted the revision on line 16 to read “the chancellor/vice president” instead of “a chancellor/vice president.”

Chair Gilmore noted that revisions will be made in the background and on line 16 (“a chancellor/vice president” to “the chancellor/vice president”). It was noted that the revisions are not substantive enough to require an additional first reading by the Senate.

Chair Gilmore made a motion to approve the proposal to be presented for approval at the November Senate meeting with advice that he will describe the effects of the revisions to the Senate. The motion was seconded. SP approved the proposal via roll call vote.

Yes: Friedman, Gilmore, Grossman, Maher, Ruud, Tolliver, Trei

No: None

Abstain: None

SP.20.25, Revision to Senate Governing Documents Regarding Emergencies

No new discussion.

SP.21.05, Revision to the Bylaws, Part D.7 – Conference on Conduct Governance

See Chair’s Remarks for additional information.

SP.21.10, Revision to the Bylaws, Part D.1.c – Senate Executive Committee, Membership

No new discussion.

SP.21.11, Revision to the Constitution, Article VI, Section 7 and the Bylaws, Parts A.1- 9, B.1-5, and D.1.c.1 (Presiding Officer)

Friedman commented that “faculty” was intentionally added to the Bylaws, Part A.6e to ensure that the Senate Executive Committee would be comprised of a certain number of faculty members. He noted his disagreement with removing this reference. SP will discuss this issue further at a future meeting.

SP.22.01, Proposed Revisions to the Statutes (USC ST-83)

No new discussion.

SP.22.02, Revision to the Bylaws, Part A.3 and Standing Rule 14 – Setting the Agenda for Senate Meetings

Chair Gilmore noted that the proposed revisions to Standing Rule 14.D are to clarify the mechanics during the process when a resolution is submitted by a senator for the Senate agenda. SP reviewed and discussed the draft proposal. SP will continue its discussion at a future meeting.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

No new business.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 pm.