Faculty meeting Minutes
October 4, 2000
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. in McIntyre 103. Fifty-six voting
members of the faculty were present.
Minutes of the September 20 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
Jim Evans announced the kick-off event for the “Centennial Retrospective,” a year-long series of
events in the arts, humanities, and sciences to celebrate the year 1900. The first event this
Friday, October 6, 2000, celebrates the music of the year 1900, and will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the
Concert Hall.
President Pierce had no report.
Dean Cooney had no report.
Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom had no report.
We turned to the main agenda item, continued discussion of the Faculty Code. Prior to this
meeting Senate Chair Haltom distributed to faculty a letter he drafted to trustees that summarizes
the informal response of the faculty to the trustees’ May 2000 informal response to the faculty’s
code change proposals. Chair Haltom had also distributed a copy of the May 2000 trustee
document with paragraphs numbered and keyed to his response letter. President Pierce
suggested that we proceed by reviewing the draft letter and that we then discuss the technicalviolations-of-procedure issue that we had not had time to discuss during the previous two faculty
meetings.
Chair Haltom pointed out that he had included in his letter the following sentence that was in the
original document sent to trustees but that was inadvertently dropped in recent discussions:
“Letters sent directly to the Advancement Committee and received after the due date of the file
shall not be included in the file.” This was approved by general consensus.
Faculty spent much of the meeting editing the letter and suggesting language changes that were
mainly minor. Important discussion had to do with the document’s ending. After lengthy
conversation the faculty came to a general consensus that the three issues the faculty believe are
substantive changes (and that should therefore be deferred to Phase Two) should receive equal
emphasis at the end of the letter, with concluding language to the effect “if substantive changes
were introduced in Phase One, the agreed-upon order for amending the code would be
compromised.”
Along the way a number of points were made and a number of questions were raised. Keith
Ward raised the point that the letter contains no statement about the considerations that make the
three issues deferred to Phase Two substantive changes. Dean Cooney suggested that, because
we have already voted to defer the three items to Phase Two, the letter need not include
discussion of them. Chair Haltom argued that it might be misleading to imply that the last item in
particular has any chance of approval by faculty either now or during Phase Two. He said that it
would be more honorable to make that point now rather than later. President Pierce said she
would not want to tell trustees that we will not discuss this issue either now or later, because this
could lead to an unnecessary impasse. She noted that in our earlier meetings this year, some
members of the faculty had indicated that they understood the trustee’s concerns and that others
had suggestions about how we might resolve the trustee’s concerns about the legal liability
stemming from too-specific procedures. She asked that we not “close the door” on the board’s
larger concern of liability. Eric Orlin suggested that we might add to the letter something like “the
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
September 20, 2000, Page 2
faculty are extremely uncomfortable with the language proposed by trustees, but we would be
willing to consider the issue during Phase Two.”
Ted Taranovski pointed out that the trustees’ May 2000 document asks Dean Cooney to report
back to them. Taranovski asked Dean Cooney if this letter would be the basis for his report.
Dean Cooney responded that the letter would be the report; that he would answer questions, but
would not add to the letter. Taranovski then suggested that Dean Cooney could report informally
the sentiment of the faculty on the substantive issues. Dean Cooney responded that he certainly
would do that and that in any case trustees have access to minutes of Faculty and Faculty Senate
meetings.
Peter Wimberger M/S/P “that we accept this letter as the faculty’s informal response to the
trustees’ informal response to the faculty’s code revision proposals.” The motion passed
on a unanimous voice vote. A copy of the letter as revised and as accepted by the faculty for
submittal to trustees is attached to these minutes, as is the May 2000 trustee informal response
with paragraphs numbered and keyed to the letter.
Before adjourning, President Pierce announced that some person(s) caused significant damage
last night to the Thompson Hall fountain by pouring in and lighting a flammable liquid. The fire
department came, as did Tacoma police, who are conducting an active investigating of the
situation as a felony incident.
Chair Haltom reminded us of the volleyball game this evening at 7:00 p.m.
We adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty