The heated discussions that ensued during Tuesday's Faculty Council meeting were the best Dan Barnhizer said he has ever witnessed.
"This is the most debate I have seen on any issue," said Barnhizer, an adjunct associate professor with the MSU College of Law.
Back-and-forth debates took up the majority of the time at the meeting, which dealt with the composition and voting rights of the Faculty Voice task forces — based off the report of the same name.
The Faculty Voice report, written last year, looked at concerns regarding the lack of faculty involvement in university decisions. As a result, a committee within the Academic Governance system created five proposals for five separate task forces that would look at restructuring Academic Governance, communication procedures within the system, current faculty reviewing procedures for administrators and academic programs and the role of fixed-term faculty.
The Academic Governance system drafts and approves changes and programs for the university before they go into effect by the MSU Board of Trustees.
Executive Committee of Academic Council Chairperson Jon Sticklen motioned for a necessary revision in the proposals regarding the composition of each group, particularly concerning the board.
Sticklen said when he contacted trustees about their involvement in each task force, they said they preferred to not be required to attend task force group meetings, but to have the option.
Several Faculty Council members, such as philosophy Professor Richard Peterson, said they didn't like the idea of having the door open to the board.
"They will have a voice and not a vote," Peterson said.
When the issue was brought up about trustees possibly having a vote in the task forces, many faculty members felt the purpose of Faculty Voice — to give faculty more say in university decisions — was becoming lost.
A motion was made to limit the number of trustees who could sit on each task force, and medicine Professor Ved Gossain said only one should be allowed. The motion passed, limiting the composition to one board member.
Council members remained worried about who had the right to vote on each task force. Faculty Council decided to allow only students and faculty to vote on any issues in each task force.
Last week, when the Executive Committee of Academic Council gathered to create a list of nominees for each task force, there were not enough people to create a nominee list for the groups looking at the reorganization of the Academic Governance system and how fixed-term faculty fit in.
Peterson proposed that each College Advisory Council should have the responsibility to nominate two people for the reorganization group and one to the fixed-term faculty group. The new recruitment process was passed and the councils were given the deadline of Nov. 7 to submit the nominees.
