Heath,

Thank you for creating the blog - first time I am blogging - and for initiating this discussion. I actually have several concerns about the Senate, but since I have been off it during the last two years and do not have the immediate experience that prompted you to address the Senate floor, I will start with the big thing that is on my mind.

It is my impression that over the last year the administration (from deans to the President's office) has been engaged in discussions about the long-term nature and future of the college. I do not know enough abotu these conversation to judge how specific they have been but I am sure that they have informed the willingness of the College to participate seriously in the current discussion about merger/collaboration with MUSC . In other words, it is my impression that even before the "merger talk" at least some members of the administration have been exploring options of expanding the institution in ways that can bring in more money.

I do not imply that the faculty and regular staff have been excluded purposefully from these discussions. To the contrary, I have had very informative talks about these plans with a few deans and President Benson, who are happy to talk about ways to secure the financial security of the college and improve its legislative status and national reputation. However, I am concerned that at the present moment our shared governance structures do not enable easy faculty participation in the long-term planning for the college.

If am not mistaken, there are only three standing committees currently that participate in (or are informed about) strategic planning:  Academic Planning, Budget and the Advisory Committee to the President. Looking at the minutes of the first two, which are available on the Senate's web page, there are indications that the committees have been consulted on important matter, but it is not clear to me that the insights they gained were passed on to the rest of the Senators and to departments. Any regular faculty member who is not on these committees, on the Senate or does not attend the two town hall meetings over the year, has limited ability to follow developments that relate to our budgetary contraints and to changes in the strategic plan. [Obviously, if one reads regularly the minutes of all committees and the Senate, she learns a lot. However, I personally do not have the time and energy to do that regularly.]

I would like a  Senate that is a more effective conduit of ideas between faculty and administration. I would like to get the Senate to spearhead a faculty-wide discussion of the future of higher education and how the College sees its future in it (do we grow or improve what we have now, do we jetison or preserve the liberal arts core; do we want or not to serve local economic and demographic needs, etc.). The College Colloquium, organized by Chris Korey and Lynn Ford, is a great idea but we need to link these theoretical discussions to our own situation.

The Purpose of This Blog

At the September 10, 2013 Faculty Senate meeting, Heath Hoffmann (former at-large HSS Senator and faculty member in Sociology) expressed a number of criticisms of the Faculty Senate. Specifically, Heath suggested that the Faculty Senate was largely ineffective and reactive, failing to take a leadership role on any of the important issues affecting faculty, our students and the College (e.g., a new and innovative General Education curriculum, the discussions about merging with MUSC, and the culture of the College in which faculty "look down their noses" at staff). Specifically, Heath suggested that the Senate spent too much time dealing with or rubber stamping unimportant issues that left no time during regular Senate meetings to address more important and pressing issues. With these shortcomings in mind, Heath offered the following suggestions for changing the processes in the Faculty Senate as well as the culture of the Senate:

1. Discontinue the practice of voting on issues brought to the Senate that have already been voted on by faculty colleagues within the Faculty Curriculum Committee, General Education Committee and the Graduate Curriculum Committee. Instead, Heath suggests that these committee approved changes be included in a consent agenda for the Faculty Senate. (New programs, Heath suggested, might be something that the Senate should still vote on).
2. Instead of committees bringing delivering 15-30 minutes reports to the Senate, require that PowerPoint presentations and/or written reports be given to the Faculty Senate to review before the Senate meeting. It is the responsibility of Senators to read those reports and then, at the Faculty Senate meeting, a representative of those committees can be present for 5-10 minute question and answer period. 
3. End "wordsmithing" on the Senate floor. Too much time is spent, Heath argued, bickering over insignificant stylistic changes in non-binding resolutions or amendments that have little impact on the College's well-being or the lives of faculty. Unless the substance of a resolution or amendment is being discussed, the Speaker of the Faculty should have the discretion to note and limit "wordsmithing" which could be addressed by the By-Laws committee to polish the language. 

A number of Senators and other faculty expressed an interested in continuing this discussion to facilitate positive changes to the Faculty Senate with the goal of making it a more pro-active force that addresses substantive issues of important to the College, faculty, staff and students. This blog is one tool to facilitate our work to "reinvision" and improve the Faculty Senate.

So, what are your thoughts on the problems with the Faculty Senate and how, from your perspective, might we advocate change in and to the Senate to make it a more effective body, symbolizing faculty initiative, leadership and proactive shared governance?