The minutes of the May 11, 2009, Faculty Senate meeting were approved.

The Consent Agenda was approved without objection.

    Department of Marine Transportation
       B.S. in Marine Transportation

    Department of Maritime Systems Engineering
       B.S. in Maritime Systems Engineering

    College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
       Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
          Minor in Agricultural Systems Management

    College of Science
       Department of Chemistry
          Minor in Chemistry – Requirement Changes

New Business

Committee of the Whole

Speaker Bednarz turned the meeting over to Speaker-Elect Strawser for the Committee of the Whole.

Former speaker Doug Slack (Agriculture and Life Sciences) expressed his deep concern and sadness at having to speak on the subject of a resolution of no confidence in Chancellor McKinney.  On behalf of a group of former Speakers he requested that a committee of the Faculty Senate be empanelled to draft a resolution of no confidence to be brought to the Senate at a subsequent meeting.  He enumerated a number of reasons for this request:

• The Chancellor on multiple occasions has made remarks undermining the concept of shared governance at TAMU
• Made changes to the TAMU retirement benefits plan offerings without input from the faculty or recognized experts on our campus
• Implemented a legal background check policy that did not have any faculty input and is questionable under EEOC rules
• Inappropriate pressure to hire a VPR and VP Student Affairs
• Inappropriate pressure to move the Research Foundation to System control
• Unprofessional job of evaluating the TAMU president
• Openly undermined the Presidency of TAMU by noting plans to combine the office of TAMU president and Chancellor
• As part of the President’s evaluation the Chancellor noted that the President was deficient in integrity and honesty, without documentation

Doug Slack concluded by requesting that a committee be appointed to prepare a resolution of no confidence in Chancellor McKinney.

Vikram Kinra (Engineering) then made the following request: “That the Faculty Senate appoint a small subcommittee, a group of senior faculty, to serve as advisers and a sounding board for the Board of Regents and the President,” and moved adoption.

Robin Smith (Liberal Arts) and Richard Stadelmann (Parliamentarian) interposed that in the Committee of the Whole motions are not in order, but requests to the Senate are; if the Senate goes back into session a majority vote can accept the request as an emergency resolution to be considered immediately.  However, a three-fourths majority is required to adopt an emergency resolution.

Speaker Bednarz commented that since the Regents are at least partly responsible for the problems, we should put the ball back in their court and offer to help them solve them.

Mariah Hahn (Engineering) spoke in support of Vikram Kinra’s request, as did John Junkins (guest), who observed that it seems we go through institutional puberty every few years.  His key observations are (1) we have this board for a while, so we need to figure out how to work with them, and (2) there has been a breakdown in communications.  He said it is urgent to act on Vikram Kinra’s request since the train is barreling toward a bridge that is out, i.e., things are likely to happen quickly, namely, in the next two weeks.  He said we need to work with whatever reasonable people we can; the presidential search two years ago ended in a mini train wreck but now there is the opposite sign; the Regents need to look at what they are doing and improve.  He asked that one senior person from each college be appointed, but not administrators, so they would have nothing to lose.  He said we need to work with the board, and if an interim president is appointed next week we will kick ourselves for not acting today.

Former speaker Clint Magill (Agriculture and Life Sciences) pointed out on behalf of the Senate and the Executive Committee that we and also student senate officers have asked several times over last three months for a breakfast meeting with the Regents and have received no response.

Former speaker Angie Hill Price (Engineering) spoke in support of President Murano and considers the review unprofessionally done; despite the past, President Murano has worked hard to work with faculty and is now paying a penalty for working with the faculty.

Eluned Jones (Agriculture and Life Sciences) expressed great concern that Vision 2020 does not seem to be a guiding factor in the recent actions of the Chancellor and Board of Regents.  She said continuity and some stability are needed; that the review of President Murano made it very clear there is a disconnect between faculty and the Board; that whereas we thought the primary disagreement was over shared governance it is now being made clear that Vision 2020 is no longer the strategic plan and there is no other to replace it, leaving us rudderless; and that all three requests should be moved forward.

Former speaker Angie Hill Price (Engineering) read section 2.6 of the System Strategic Plan regarding staff and faculty excellence. It talks about funding and implementing a system wide teaching excellence award, which we have seen the SLATE version, and facilitating system wide mentorship and professional development programs, increasing and facilitating faculty exchanges, joint appointments, and shared research effort between members and developing and implementing state wide administrative development training opportunities. The only two forms of measuring success mentioned were establishing the teaching excellence awards at each campus by the beginning of FY10 and developing a system wide mentorship and professional development program by FY10 and having a good and excellent rating from 85% of program participants, but that’s all they say; that the version we got devolved into a popularity contest and failed to recognize many hard-working faculty.

Richard Stadelmann (Parliamentarian) said we really have a wonderful opportunity here: former President Gates spoke to me and others regarding shared governance and its needing to be institutionalized; now we have the opportunity to do so.  He said he knows most of the board, and they are tremendously concerned with the growth and development of the university; part of the trouble we have is that that they may be too concerned with the small details, but he is hopeful that something positive will come out and can be institutionalized.

Kirk Winemiller (Agriculture and Life Sciences) said that was a good setup for his comments and that all he knew about this crisis is what he read in the newspaper.  He asked how the suggestion to have a group of distinguished professors interface with the Board of Regents would be any different.

John Junkins (guest) replied that there were two meetings but he was out of town for the second one.  He said the proposed subcommittee would probably include distinguished professors but not be limited to them; that maybe this could be institutionalized and maybe eventually become a permanent Faculty Sneate subcommittee with one person from each college; that if the Board rejects the offer that would send a clear signal; that it is important to take opportunities.  During the Gates search he found that reason and logic could make headway with the Board and asked how we could become a sounding board--maybe by giving confidential advice, since that’s how they like to work.  If the subcommittee comes back and reports everything that would be the end of it.

Kathryn McKenzie (Education and Human Development) said she was probably more radical and the problem was more than communication.  She said she knows pretty well what Chancellor McKinney thinks and wants, and that there is a need for urgent Senate action.

Mariah Hahn (Engineering) agreed the matter is urgent and said that whether or not they hear us is irrelevant, that we have to try or we will be kicking ourselves, that if the Chancellor will not meet with a group of senior faculty it looks really bad for him because it will be documented. And not doing anything is unacceptable.

Stephen Atkins (Library) concurred regarding urgency.  He reported that Chancellor McKinney is trying to micromanage the library and remove all electronic resources to the System, and that President Murano’s defense of the library may be a cause of her low ratings.

Tim Hall (guest) said that he had faxed all the Regents; only one had his fax machine on and he responded immediately.  Dr. Hall feels it is a matter of discussion and interaction; that the Regents have the university at heart but have a very different view the faculty, who are the ones that make A&M degrees more and more valuable.

Richard Hutchinson (Engineering) expressed his opinion that right now we have two major players rapidly burning political capital, so if we can help resolve the controversies maybe they can preserve some of it.  He said the Senate, although to a certain extent ignored already, needs to express its opinion and offer advice with a non-accusatory stance, without preconceived demands.  In the short term he expects the University to get a black eye in the news, and that in the long term funding could be affected.

Speaker-Elect Strawser asked former speaker Doug Slack (Agriculture and Life Sciences) about his request.  Senator Slack identified two different goals, and said his request was about the Chancellor, who has kept us from getting to the Board.  He said that his experience with the Board had not been as laudatory as
John Junkins and asked that if we do go ahead with a committee it should focus on the Regents, to “trust but verify,” in the phrase of President Reagan. Speaker-Elect Strawser asked if Senator Slack was asking the Executive Committee to investigate or was just asking for a resolution of no confidence in the Chancellor.  Senator Slack replied that he wanted a resolution with particulars, presented to Chancellor McKinney next Monday.

Speaker Bednarz repeated that there is more than one issue at stake, but the issues are not mutually exclusive.  He said that people do have specific complaints with what the Chancellor has done and that they want to state that.  He promoted the idea of opening up structured and permanent communication with the Board of Regents and noted that in years past Regents would have lunch with the EC when they were in town for their meetings. He said that given the publicized negative review of President Murano by the Chancellor, it would only be fair that she be given opportunity to rectify deficiencies. 

Robin Smith (Liberal Arts) asked Stephen Atkins (Library) to expand on his previous remarks, especially with regard to tenure cases.  Senator Atkins replied that the Chancellor had made clear that he did not believe in tenure for librarians (although we have had it since 1975) and threatened to deny all librarians' tenure packages.  Senator Atkins pointed out that Texas A&M is number one nationally in librarianship faculty.  He said that the Chancellor wants to take electronic resources away from the library and put them in the System (which has no library expertise), an idea which terrifies the library faculty.

Former speaker Diane Kaplan (guest) recalled that years ago before she was Speaker there was a group of Regents who felt that no one should research World War II who wasn’t there fighting in it; however, they did come to lunch [with the Executive Committee] and gradually they realized that we (the faculty) also have the interests of the students and the university at heart.  She said that at convocation she had asked each regent individually to meet with faculty, but nothing’s happened, and lamented that President Murano was being punished for standing up for faculty on the Vice President for Research issue etc.  She observed that people don’t just give up power. She asked if President Murano would be at the EC retreat and Speaker-Elect Strawser noted the President was invited to the dinner but she had a conflict.

Former speaker Angie Hill Price (Engineering) asked rhetorically: Do you believe the Chancellor has shown effective leadership in the last four years?  Do you think he’s going to get better?  Do you think he’s been an effective manager of people and resources?  Do you think he’s going to get better?

Speaker Bednarz will contact the Board of Regents to see if they’re willing to meet before Monday’s Board meeting and said that the agenda for the upcoming Executive Committee retreat will include the resolution that was handed out before the meeting and they will decide if they want to bring that forward or not and it will be ready for the next faculty senate meeting.

Tom Linton (Galveston) asked about a resolution of support for the President while we are talking about a resolution of no confidence for the Chancellor.

Speaker Bednarz asked for a show of hands of those in favor of forming a committee to draft a resolution of no confidence in the Chancellor and declared they were a majority.

Eluned Jones (Agriculture) asked for a fourth action: a vote of confidence in President Murano’s actions.

Tom Vogel (Science) asked why the Executive Committee could not just appoint an ad hoc committee and proceed with this right away.

Speaker Bednarz said he would initiate contact with the Board tomorrow to see if they will meet with a committee.  He reported that when the idea of merging the offices of President and Chancellor first arose he had called Chairman Foster, but the result was the same as with the previous Chairman—he agreed but nothing happened.

Mariah Hahn (Engineering) asked if an emergency motion would speed things up.  Speaker Bednarz reiterated that he would contact the Board tomorrow to see if they were willing to meet with a committee and said that his procedure will be to ask each caucus leader to appoint someone. 
Senator Hahn commented that if we pass a vote of no confidence in Chancellor McKinney it would be perceived as a gratuitous insult to simultaneously praise President Murano.

Vikram Kinra (Engineering) asked if both will be acted on; the answer was yes.

Andrew Klein (Geosciences) said that the Executive Committee has been struggling with how to constructively engage the Chancellor and that they don’t know if it’s going to work

Deborah Bell-Pedersen (guest) said she thinks we should vote today since delay would indicate we don’t think it’s that important and our reputation will suffer more and more.  She said that appointing a woman and Hispanic increased our reputation and for this to happen puts us at a very big disadvantage as far as our reputation goes.

Former speaker Marty Loudder (guest) said this is not about communication but about power and wanted to “violently” agree with former speaker Price that the Chancellor is not going to change his mind though many have tried to communicate with him.  She said he is not in favor of shared governance but very hostile; she said that over a year ago in a meeting arranged by President Murano at the Chancellor’s house he questioned whether faculty were qualified to tell him whom to hire as a dean and that to her credit President Murano had replied that they were.  Regarding the composition of any committee to meet with the Board, Dr. Loudder reiterated former President Gates’ frequent statement “The voice of the faculty is the Faculty Senate; they are elected by the faculty to do that job. They and only they speak for the faculty.”

Jyotsna Vaid (LA) asked for a special subcommittee for fact-finding and liaison with the press and other universities regarding university-regent relationships.

Tom Linton (Galveston) said we should go ahead, whether it is offensive to the Chancellor or not; it’s good to take the high ground.

Kirk Winemiller (Agriculture and Life Sciences) said he could see Senator Linton’s point but would like to act before 5:00 by a vote of confidence in President Murano as suggested by Senator Hahn.

Robin Smith (Liberal Arts) reiterated that that would require three steps: first, as the Committee of the Whole, passing a recommendation to the Faculty Senate; second, to resume the Faculty Senate meeting and by a simple majority vote to consider a resolution; and lastly, to pass the resolution by a 75% vote.

Kathryn McKenzie (Education and Human Development) said that she did not think a vote in support of President Murano was the same as a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor and would defocus the emphasis on shared governance.

Marlan Scully (guest) said that we have a Board of Regents we have to work with and we have people that are trying to help us; if we work the right way we can actually achieve that. Chancellor McKinney had been very helpful to efforts to bring in National Academy members and Nobel Prize winners but that he did not know about data for others; he urged that the Senate move slowly and deliberately on these important issues.

Mariah Hahn (Engineering) asked for a vote, and proposed a Committee of the Whole resolution to move a recommendation to the Senate for a resolution of no confidence in the Chancellor, but after some private discussions she withdrew the recommendation.

The Committee of the Whole being concluded, Speaker Bednarz announced that Richard Stadelmann has agreed to serve as Parliamentarian once more, to general approbation.  Senators who will be away from College Station for the summer were reminded to fill out the form requesting inactive status so that they will not count against a quorum.

Speaker Bednarz expressed thanks to all senators and faculty who responded so quickly with regard to the email request for opinions about the merger question, and also expressed thanks for participating in the survey.

The meeting was adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 5:02 P.M.