Minutes of the Rules and Review Committee

October 11, 2007

Revised Nov 2, 2007

Present:  Jim Glasgow, Helen Heron, Jack Johannes, Rose O’Driscoll, John Stofey, Bob Styer, Selma Koury-Wunderlich

Absent: Rob Dormish, Stephen Fugale (NIA), Tom Nardi (NIA), Deepak Sharma (NIA), Kristin Seeger (NIA), Jay Strieb

Meeting began at 4:30 PM in the Rosemont Room, Connelly Center

1.  Minutes from 09/05/2007 approved

2.  We discussed a meeting time.  Tom Nardi had requested us to consider a Friday afternoon meeting.  This is not good for Kristin, but she is currently very busy with a new position, and will be busy through November.  So after some discussion, we decided to set the next meeting for Friday November 2, at 2:30 pm, in the Rosemont Room. 

3.  Motion to rescind the motion from the last meeting that requested Fr. Donahue to form an ad-hoc committee.  Made by Bob Styer and seconded by Selma Wunderlich, passed unanimously.

4.  Asked for volunteers to serve on subcommittees to review Student Life/Student Government and Athletics.  Tom Nardi volunteered to serve on the Student Life review subcommittee.  Dr. Johannes suggested that perhaps we review committees too often.  We discussed this and decided it might be worth changing.  Given the dearth of volunteers, we decided to just form the subcommittee to review Student Life for now and continue the discussion later.  Bob Styer agreed to ask Jay Strieb and Kristin Seeger to serve on the committee (both have experience on review subcommittees). 

5.  Bob Styer introduced his idea for an alternative “Committee on Staff” which he calls “Committee on Cross-Functional Coordination and Community Enhancement.”  Members questioned how this fits into the bigger picture.  He sees three aspects to increasing staff input to governance:  adding more staff Senators to the Senate, adding either a Committee on Staff or the Committee on Cross-functional Coordination as a standing Senate committee, and finally, creating an independent Staff Body.  John Stofey was commended for gathering extensive information on various staff councils at other universities.  Dr. Johannes noted that the institutions were almost all public institutions, not private, asking whether they had university senates of the sort (membership, authority) found at Villanova. Bob Styer stated that he thinks the Senate is not the right vehicle for creating an independent staff body, and that we should focus on the aspects of staff input to the Senate, though note there is overlap in putting the chair of the new staff body ex-officio on the Senate, in parallel with the way the Faculty Congress chair and the SGA president sit on the Senate.  Dr. Johannes spelled out the historical primacy of faculty in academic matters and stated that, given the Senate’s formal “legislative authority” over major matters crossing college boundaries, and given the principle that persons should not vote on matters outside their areas of competence, in particular it would not be appropriate for staff to vote on academic matters.  Jim Glasgow pointed out from a management viewpoint that it would be inappropriate to add that many members to a body that reportedly does not facilitate active participation of its current members.  Others responded that “legislation” is rather a misnomer, since the legislation has no power to compel.  In practice, everyone realizes that Senate measures are only advisory to the President and that the most effective use of the Senate is in persuading the Vice-Presidents to implement the desired measures.  Dr. Johannes responded that (a) the Senate constitution is such that “legislation” sent to the president requires approval or a veto, when dialogue and discussion might be the preferred mode of resolution, and (b) the legislative process may lead to adversarial “us versus them” positions and inhibits the best dialogue and collegial working that could lead to truly exceptional results for the Villanova community.  He would like us to consider changing the Senate from a “legislature” or “congress” with formal policymaking authority to something akin to a  parliament, where debate on issues and questioning of those in authority would be the primary function, thus hopefully involving a wider audience.  He thus opined that we should change the language of “legislation” to “recommendation.” 

Given the lack of more time, the Chair asked if we could vote on only a limited portion of the suggested staff amendments.  The sections on adding staff to the Senate should be considered first, given the need to get this approved by the Board of Trustees in time for spring elections.  So he asked for a vote on this limited set of amendments. 

The committee approved three constitutional changes to be read at the next Senate meeting and voted at the following meeting:

Moved by Bob Styer and seconded by Selma Wunderlich:

That Article V, Section 1 strike the words “two staff” and replace by “thirteen staff”. 

Old Version:

The University Senate shall be composed of thirteen faculty members, thirteen administrators, thirteen students, two staff, two alumni and the President of the Alumni Association serving as an ex officio, non-voting member. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall be a faculty member elected by the University Senate.

New version
The University Senate shall be composed of thirteen faculty members, thirteen administrators, thirteen students, thirteen staff, two alumni and the President of the Alumni Association serving as an ex officio, non-voting member. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall be a faculty member elected by the University Senate.

Approved by a vote of 5-2-0. 

Moved by Bob Styer and seconded by Selma Wunderlich:

That Article V, Section 6 be replaced by a new Section 6.  

Current Section 6: 
The staff representation shall be apportioned as follows: two representatives shall be elected, one from the exempt staff and one from the non-exempt/non-represented staff.

New Section 6:

The twelve elected staff members shall be apportioned from nonunion staff, with the election process striving for maximum representation across staff constituencies.  The Chairperson of the Staff Body shall be ex officio a Staff Senator. 

Approved unanimously. 

Moved by Bob Styer and seconded by Selma Wunderlich:

That Article VI, Section 6 be replaced by a new Section 6.

Current Section 6:
The staff members shall be elected by their respective constituencies for two year terms. Any member of either constituency may nominate a member of that constituency, and self-nomination will be permissible. A majority of the votes cast shall be necessary to win, and members may be re-elected. Nominees must have completed three years of service at the University to be eligible and must demonstrate an interest in contributing to the mission of the University and support for the Constitution of the Villanova University Senate. No one at the Director level or above shall be eligible. The Executive Committee of the Senate, with the help of the Department of Human Resources, will oversee the election process.

New Section 6:

All nonunion staff will be invited to vote for candidates to be staff senators.  The staff members shall be elected for two year terms. Any staff member may nominate a staff colleague, and self-nomination will be permissible. The twelve Senatorial candidates receiving the most votes will be declared the election winners; members may be re-elected. Nominees must have completed three years of full-time service at the University to be eligible and must demonstrate an interest in contributing to the mission of the University and support for the Constitution of the Villanova University Senate.  The Executive Committee of the Senate will appoint a special Elections Committee to oversee the election process, striving for maximum representation across staff constituencies.  The Chairperson of the Staff Body shall be ex officio a member of the Senate.

Approved unanimously. 

The Chair then entertained a motion to adjourn, unanimous approval.  The meeting ended at 5:52 pm.