Fallout over faculty senate vote
A. Neely Eisenstein, Managing Editor, aeisenst@smu.edu
Issue date: 3/9/07 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Some Faculty Senate members are calling for a revote after a resolution regarding the Bush Institute failed on Wednesday with a vote of 13-13 and three abstentions. Another resolution calling for concurrent appointments at the institute to be appointed by both SMU and the institute passed.
The resolution that failed called on the university to choose one of two options: the institutions could either be completely separate from SMU or else it would have to submit to SMU's governance.
In the first instance, the institute would not allowed to be associated with the SMU name without the university's permission, nor would it be located on campus.
"The main point of connection between a possible Bush Institute and the university would be concurrent appointments of SMU faculty members with the Institute or of Institute Fellows with the university," said Provost Thomas Tunks in an e-mail interview.
Alexis McCrossen, an associate professor in the history department, sent out a mass e-mail Thursday afternoon calling for Faculty Senate members to push for a revote with a secret ballot.
She requested a revote because many senators left before the vote took place.
Senate usually ends at 5 p.m., but Wednesday's meeting didn't end until 5:30 p.m. McCrossen said several members had left due to other obligations.
Tunks said that he was at the meeting to address "the cumulative effect of dragging out controversies that have largely been settled."
Though McCrossen took issue with the public vote, another senator, English Professor Dennis Foster, pointed out that the Senate always votes publicly.
"I have been on the Senate for a long time, but I don't remember a Senate vote ever being secret," he said. "We're senators, we're supposed to take positions for the people we represent."
Nevertheless, McCrossen said she thought Tunks and Senate President Rhonda Blair may have been unintentionally intimidating, adding that some may have felt pressured to vote one way for fear of losing tenure or contracts.
The resolution that failed called on the university to choose one of two options: the institutions could either be completely separate from SMU or else it would have to submit to SMU's governance.
In the first instance, the institute would not allowed to be associated with the SMU name without the university's permission, nor would it be located on campus.
"The main point of connection between a possible Bush Institute and the university would be concurrent appointments of SMU faculty members with the Institute or of Institute Fellows with the university," said Provost Thomas Tunks in an e-mail interview.
Alexis McCrossen, an associate professor in the history department, sent out a mass e-mail Thursday afternoon calling for Faculty Senate members to push for a revote with a secret ballot.
She requested a revote because many senators left before the vote took place.
Senate usually ends at 5 p.m., but Wednesday's meeting didn't end until 5:30 p.m. McCrossen said several members had left due to other obligations.
Tunks said that he was at the meeting to address "the cumulative effect of dragging out controversies that have largely been settled."
Though McCrossen took issue with the public vote, another senator, English Professor Dennis Foster, pointed out that the Senate always votes publicly.
"I have been on the Senate for a long time, but I don't remember a Senate vote ever being secret," he said. "We're senators, we're supposed to take positions for the people we represent."
Nevertheless, McCrossen said she thought Tunks and Senate President Rhonda Blair may have been unintentionally intimidating, adding that some may have felt pressured to vote one way for fear of losing tenure or contracts.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Dennis Foster
posted 3/09/07 @ 11:01 AM CST
I regret that Provost Tunks sees the Faculty Senate's ongoing discussion of the relationship between the proposed Bush Institute and SMU as a "continuing string of negatives. (Continued…)
Post a Comment