PUBLICATIONS Inside Illinois Vol. 21, No. 16, March 21, 2002

Senators discuss free speech, courtesy, budget

By Sharita Forrest, Assistant Editor
(217) 244-1072; slforres@illinois.edu

New resolutions governing discourse in its meetings and communications between the Senate Executive Committee and other entities sparked debate in the March 11 Urbana-Champaign Senate meeting.

By a 35-29 hand vote, the Senate passed a resolution upholding "freedom of speech for all Senators and presiding officers" and mandating that "standards of courtesy and mutual respect" be demonstrated during Senate meetings and meetings of Senate committees.

Senator David Berg, professor of mathematics, spoke against the resolution, saying that it was "unreasonable and unnecessary and a gesture somewhat in line with the Senate’s often futile gestures."

"We’re all for it, but I don’t believe it’s appropriate as a resolution," Berg said.
In response to a question, Senator Emily Watts, professor of English, said the resolution was prompted by behavior displayed at the previous meeting, including instances of name-calling.

Another resolution governing communications between the Senate Executive Committee and university administration and the board of trustees was introduced by Senators Peter Loeb, professor of mathematics, and Harry Hilton, professor emeritus of aeronautical and astronautical engineering. Despite the Senate’s passing two friendly amendments to the original resolution, the resolution was defeated in a 39-26 hand vote.

The resolution took issue with a Nov. 13, 2001, transmittal letter from Senator Robert Fossum, Senate Council chair, to President James J. Stukel that expressed the Senate Council’s reservations about a provision in the proposed amendment to the University Statutes on faculty discipline. The proposed amendment had been passed by the Urbana-Champaign Senate at its Oct. 29, 2001, meeting.

Hilton and Loeb said they initiated the resolution because they felt Fossum’s letter undermined the Senate’s actions and misrepresented the Senate’s intentions with regard to the proposed amendment. The Senate Executive Committee’s refusal to allow amendments to the proposed statute during the Oct. 29, 2001, Senate meeting violated Senate bylaws, and Fossum’s refusal to discuss the matter further at the February Senate meeting was unacceptable, Hilton and Loeb said.

"We need the right to amend to fulfill our responsibility to our constituents," Loeb said. "… We must act and act today."

Fossum said that the resolution proposed by Hilton and Loeb was inappropriate and based upon false premises. The Senate had exercised its amendatory powers, but the amendment had been defeated, Fossum said.

In addition, Fossum said he had provided copies of his letter to Stukel to all senators on Dec. 6, and the letter had merely expressed an opinion and did not negate the Senate’s actions on the amendment.

Senators Edwin Herricks, professor of environmental biology and of civil and environmental engineering; Jan Novakofski, professor of animal sciences and of nutritional sciences; and Nicholas Burbules, professor of educational policy studies, all spoke against the resolution, with Novakofski saying that the resolution was "much more of a personal attack than an attempt to solve a problem with communication or keep the senators informed."

In other business, Hilton and Loeb also proposed a resolution related to the proposed amendment to the University Statutes regarding severe sanctions other than dismissal. The resolution requested that the University Senates Conference re-affirm the wording approved by the three senates or that the University Senates Conference ask Stukel to delay transmission of the amendment to the board of trustees pending approval of revised wording by the Chicago and Springfield senates.

The revised language proposed by Loeb and Hilton would have allowed the elected committee to close a faculty discipline case with a three-fourths vote or with a majority recommendation by the committee and the provost’s concurrence.

After debate, Senator H. George Friedman, professor emeritus of engineering, offered a substitute motion, which instructed the Urbana-Champaign Senate’s delegation in the University Senates Conference to continue pursuing passage of the original statutory amendment. The substitute motion was passed unanimously.

In her opening remarks, Chancellor Nancy Cantor told the Senate that the projected fiscal year 2002-2003 budget reduction for the Urbana campus might be in the range of $25 million to $30 million.

(The projected figure has since been revised to $43 million.)

If trustees were to approve a 5 percent tuition increase, departmental budget cuts would likely be 3.5 percent for academic units and 5.5 for administrative units. If a 10 percent increase is approved, the cuts would be less and the administration would be able to use the tuition surcharge for its intended purposes, such as adding faculty members, Cantor said.
Although a 10 percent increase would give the administration more leeway, approximately 55 to 60 faculty members and 160 staff might still be lost, Cantor said.

Senator Helaine Silverman, professor of anthropology, asked if faculty members should be concerned about losing their jobs.

Cantor responded that administrators "are very much hoping there won’t be a need (to reduce faculty) beyond attrition and not filling new positions, but it would be very unfair to say anything definite at this time."

"We will certainly use the surcharge in appropriate areas to reduce the load on faculty and staff [members]," Cantor said.

Cantor also told the Senate she had just returned from 10 days of fund-raising with key foundations and said she hoped the campus would receive "substantial help" in dealing with its financial problems.

In other business, Senate discussion and action on a proposed interim policy governing appropriate use of computers and network systems was suspended because of time constraints.