Villanova University
Minutes of the Rules and Review Committee
December 4, 2012
Present: Jay Strieb, Robert Styer, Selma Koury Wunderlich, Chair, Tom De Marco,
Allison Venella, Ward T. Williams, Daniel Goldowsky, Helen Heron (ex officio)
Absent: Rev. Kail Ellis, OSA, Stephen Fugale, Christine Alizzi (NIA), Ryan Gatti (NIA),
David Fiorenza
The meeting convened at 11:30 a.m.
Tom DeMarco opened the meeting with a prayer.
I.
THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2012 HAVE BEEN UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
II.
STATUS REPORT ON THE UNIVERSITY SENATE EVALUATION
Mrs. Koury Wunderlich explained that, at this point in time, Qualtrics has received a
42% response rate. The second reminder was sent out on November 29th. Helen
Heron will then send this information to Jay Strieb, the Chair of the committee.
III. GUEST SPEAKER – DR. HELEN LAFFERTY
Dr. Lafferty began her presentation by explaining that she was on the University
Senate for sixteen years as a Senator. She was also on the Executive Committee.
She felt that the Executive Committee and the Rules and Review Committee at
that time worked very much in tandem.
Dr. Lafferty described the Senate as a configuration of both people and places. She
explained that the Senate originated from a recommendation from the Middle States
that there be some type of organization developed that represented the voice of the
university. Previously, that voice was only the faculty and administration. Father
Driscoll, the former president of the university, realized that the constituency of the
university is not just faculty and staff, but it involves the students which is how the
tripartite developed. She stated that when she chaired the Middle States in 1989,
Larry Galen who was the Vice President for Academic Affairs encouraged her to
attend the Senate meetings.
She remarked that when she was approached to speak at this meeting today she tried
to imagine the University Senate at its best. She feels as though we should focus on
what is a University Senate at its best? She tried to reduce it to just one common
factor. The University Senate is the voice of the university, therefore, we are
appointed to these Standing Committees to be that voice. Again, she stated that this
goes in tandem with the Executive Committee.
She consulted the University Constitution as to the actual charge of the Rules and
Review Committee. She sees the Executive Committee as the conscience of the
University Senate. She sees the Rules and Review Committee as the anchor. She sees
the anchor as keeping people grounded. It gives them a sense of safety, security and
confidence. She considers it, in that context, a very awesome task. She believes that
each committee on the University Senate should do two things. First, try to imagine
the University Senate at its best…operative word “best”. Secondly, where do we fit
in and where is our level of accountability?
She read what the Constitution states about the Rules and Review Committee:
“The Rules and Review Committee shall commence an evaluation report of the University Senate.”
From that statement she sees that the Rules and Review Committee members are the
people in charge of telling everyone else how well they are doing.
She noted that to date the Senate Evaluation Survey has only had a 42% response
rate. She feels this number is not representative. She sees this as having no
investment and if 42% is good then that message is not good. Selma Koury
Wunderlich remarked that when they were revising the Constitution they put in a
direct line to each Vice President. It has worked so well that most of the problems
that arise within these various committees are solved when they go to their
respective Vice President. They are no longer bringing their issues to the Senate for
debate or resolution. Selma’s suggestion was that it be dissolved.
Dr. Lafferty suggested that perhaps we should redefine the Senate rather than
dissolving it. If people think that their voice is being heard through this new
mechanism then that is fine. She suggested looking at the other structures in place
and wondering if they have run their course. Are they time-sensitive to a point where
they are no longer functioning purposefully? When people do not feel a need to
invest in something because there is nothing they get from it, they then withdraw.
There needs to be a Quid Pro Quo. The people need decisions and in response they
will give you their best thinking. They will give thoughts that might run counter to
other people’s thoughts. They will tell you what is important to them and then they
will tell you what is important from the constituency they represent. This is our task.
She feels that many times in university governance one of the main problems is that
nothing strategic can be planned if you do not think strategically. If there has been
no strategic thinking, you can be assured that your planning will not be very good.
Until those mechanisms change in some way, we will continue to feel as though we
are spinning our wheels.
She emphasized the fact that this is just her own opinion. She thinks that where the
University Senate structure is concerned, it might well be time for us to either get a
new structure or dissolve the one we presently have. We have become complacent
which can be a good thing until things start to happen that we can no longer control.
We cannot control people’s view anymore of the function and purpose of the
University Senate. We cannot persuade them, in our own way, that this body is
doing what it says it is doing. When this happens, it is time to decide, that we are the
new pioneers for the new place we are going. She remarked that being a pioneer is a
very difficult task. It takes courage. She quoted Sir Edmund Burke, “All that is
necessary for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing”. We all need to do
something.
Dr. Lafferty remarked that the whole notion of the University Senate should never
be taken lightly. She feels that the fact that we are elected officials says that people
believe in us. We can speak their voice. She feels that the Rules and Review
Committee’s position is probably as prominent as the Executive Committee. Our
duty is to keep everyone on task. Our job is to know what the duties of the other
Standing Committees are. We must know where to remand an issue. The other
committees must also see us as an anchor.
She noted that there are so many things about Villanova that are so wonderful, but at
this time in history, she sees that our complacency does not serve us well. She
realizes that there is trepidation when one puts oneself out on a limb and no one else
is behind you. Particularly, when their voices were always there with you which is
what precipitated you going out on the limb in the first place. It takes courage to do
these jobs if you do them right.
She pointed out that in universities we don’t tend to know how the system works.
We are “siloed”, all we know is our own department. We should be forced to think
globally. We cannot be global thinkers when we are “siloed”. We need to be
horizontal. We not only need to rock the boat, but maybe even build a new one. If
the present procedures of operation have passed you by, then it is time to move on.
If any disposition of any dispute comes to the Senate, they should be presented to
the Rules and Review Committee. You are called to give your best thinking for the
constituents that you represent.
Dr. Lafferty ended her presentation with a quote from John F. Kennedy, “Most
people enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”.
The Chair thanked Dr. Lafferty for her presentation.
The committee felt that in the near future we should come up with some ideas for
restructuring the Senate.
IV. FUTURE GUEST SPEAKERS
 Dottie Malloy
 Phil Maurone
A decision was made to have one speaker each year
V.
NEW BUSINESS
Jutta Seibert who is the History Liaison Team Leader for the Library has been
nominated to join the Academic Policy Committee.
VI. SCHEDULE DATE FOR THE NEXT MEETING OF THE RULES AND REVIEW
COMMITTEE
Helen Heron agreed to send out a schedule electronically to each member so that we
may coordinate our times.
Jay Strieb and his evaluation team will be attending the next Senate meeting.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12.40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Helen Heron
Secretary