Evaluation of the University Senate
Spring, 2013
Submitted February, 2013 to the Rules and Review Committee by Jay Strieb , Chair,
University Senate Evaluation Committee
The evaluation committee consisted of Jay Strieb, Ward Williams, and David Fiorenza.
Documents examined included a web-based survey administered to a panel of 103
members of the University Senate serving currently or during the past 4 academic years,
as well as all minutes of the University Senate for that period of time. We met in January
2013 to review our findings, attended the February 8, 2013 meeting of the Senate, and
followed up by email to edit and complete the report.
Of the 103 Senate members to whom the survey and a follow-up reminder were sent, a
total of 46 responses were received, giving a response rate of 45%. The breakdown of
the responses is below:
The responses illustrated above indicate a wide variety of opinions on the utility of the
Senate. There was nearly universal agreement that agendas were published before
meetings, that the presence of invited speakers added value, and that the meetings are run
well. More mixed responses were received on questions dealing with whether the Senate
operates effectively and efficiently, whether the goals were clear, and whether there was
a high participation among members.
Minutes of Senate Meetings:
A survey of previous Senate minutes covering the past four years indicates that the
Senate has taken on a wide variety of issues of importance to the University. These
include, but are not limited to, the following:
University Budget
Campus Facilities
Campus Safety
Faculty Congress
SGA
Alumni Association
Rules and Review Committee Amendments
Big East Changes
Dining Services
Strategic Planning Process
International Studies
Residence Life
Student Life
Provost Search
Deans Searches
Football Issues
Master Plan
Middle States Evaluation
Faculty Salaries Review
Benefits Review
Parking Issues
President’s Annual Address
Augustinian Institute
The Senate meeting attended by members of the Subcommittee was well-attended, started
and ended with a gratifyingly strict adherence to schedule, and included several wellprepared speakers on a variety of important issues. Senate members were attentive and
asked carefully considered questions.
Summary and Recommendations:
Special commendation should be given to Dr. Robert Styer, Chairperson of the Senate,
for his excellent conduct of Senate meetings and his advocacy of the importance of the
Senate, and to Ms. Helen Heron, Secretary of the Senate, for superb minutes of the
proceedings.
Much discussion has taken place recently concerning the possibility of a restructuring of
the University Senate. Based on the observations of our Committee, we do believe that
the Senate or an equivalent structure is needed to fill an important niche in University
life. However, many of the original goals set for the Senate (e.g., a legislative role) have
been overtaken by events or made less relevant by other structures currently in existence..
The suggestion has been offered, most recently at a joint meeting of Rules and Review
and the Executive Committee, that Senate meetings should be suspended for a period of
time, with the committee structure still functioning, while a special subcommittee should
undertake a study of the appropriate role to be played by a similar body in the future of
the University. Our Subcommittee endorses this approach.