COE Senate Minutes 10/02/2009
COE Senate Meeting
October 02, 2009
(0220 Benjamin 9:00-11:00)
Chair: Bob Lent
MINUTES
Senators in Attendance



















Debra Neubert for Paula Beckman, EDSP
Christy Corbin, At Large
Pat Campbell, EDCI
Bob Croninger, EDPS
Paul Gold, EDCP (minutes recorder)
Lattisha Hall, Admin. Professional Representative (Exempt)
David, Imig, At Large
Hong Jiao, EDMS
Andrea Jones, Undergraduate Student Representative
Bob Lent, EDCP, Chair
Betty Malen, EDPS
Bob Mislevy, EDMS
Sherril Moon, EDSP
Connie North, EDCI
Geetha Ramani, EDHD
Kasra Sotudeh, Graduate Student Representative
Bill Strein for Hedy Teglasi
Marvin Titus, EDHI
Judith Torney-Purta, EDHD
Invited
Donna Wiseman, Dean
____________________________________________________________________________________
New Senators Acknowledged
 Lattisha Hall, Admin. Professional Representative (Exempt)
 Kasra Sotudeh, Graduate Student Representative
____________________________________________________________________________________
Electing a Secretary for the Senate
 Bob Lent nominated Paul Gold for Secretary of Senate; Senators approved nomination by acclamation
____________________________________________________________________________________
COLLEGE REORGANIZATION
Review of First-stage Vote on Reorganization Models



Voting took place from 09/28/2009 to 09/30/2009 conducted electronically on COE website
College faculty and staff instructed to vote for or against vote all six model variations on ballot
75% voter “turnout”: 154 eligible voters/204 total eligible voters
1

COE Senate Minutes 10/02/2009
Bob reminded Senate, at 09/11 meeting, the full senate reserved right to modify models (e.g., combine,
condense, pare down) going forward to the 2nd Stage vote. However, Senate did not articulate procedures
for selecting models to be advanced to 2nd stage voting
Discussion about which 1st Stage Findings to be basis for selecting Models for 2nd Stage Vote

Summary of vote tally by Model Aggregated across All Categories provided orally
o
o
o
o
o
Models > 50% positive votes:
 3-Dept Model: 54%
 4-Dept Amended Model (EDSP proposed): 52%
Amended 3/4- Dept Model (EDMS Institute proposal): 46% positive votes
2-Dept 21% positive votes, 2-Dept Amended 30% positive votes, 4-Dept Original Model 34%:
Discussion: will these data be sufficient for judging which Models should be placed before
electorate for 2nd Stage Vote, even though “partial blind” might reduce senator “preference bias”
(i.e. self-interest) by faculty representing their departments
Some felt that self-interest is not a relevant issue because Senators are expected to represent their
constituencies

Motion: Full disclosure of voting patterns vs. disclosure of “limited” patterns (i.e. neither by department
nor by voting bloc [tenure stream, non-tenure stream, staff): Yes (14), No (2), Abstain (2); Motion Carried

Full vote tally then distributed to senators
o
o
o
o

Motion: three models (not specified) to be on 2nd stage ballot for ranking; EDMS not on ballot as model
o
o
o

Distribution of votes by Model by Department aggregated by Tenure Stream
Votes were not disclosed by type of appointment within unit; very small sample sizes of staff
and/or non-tenure stream faculty in certain units risked breach of confidentiality
Dean Wiseman was asked how the COE’s model preference would be handled by Provost: Dean
would discuss informally with Provost which model to submit “as is,” and/or how to modify model
according to his preferences and then formally submit
EDMS institute model difficult to consider as a separate stand-alone Model for 2nd Stage voting,
given that it appears to be a “grafting” of an institute on to the 3-Dept & 4-Dept Original/Amended
Models.
Treat EDMS Institute proposal in 2nd Stage voting as separate matter from vote on full models
EDMS free to place institute on ballot or withdraw it (decision must be made by 2 p.m. today—can
put to college as yes/no vote
Yes (18), No (0), Abstain (0); Motion Carried
Motion: three models (2-Dept Amended [EDPS]; 3-Dept; 4-Dept Amended [EDSP]) to be on 2nd stage
ballot for ranking
o
Discussion:
 1st stage up/down voting process might reflect implicit voter “preferences” (i.e. ranked) for
one and only one model, if some proportion of voters [unknown to us] voted “Yes” on one
of six models & “No” on remainder. Such voting may artificially reduce % Yes votes on
some/most/all models to unknown extent
 Debate over whether 4-Dept original & amended models represented a nesting that might
not be distinguishable for electorate; arguments on both side of issue
 Argument that it is necessary to include at least 3 models in order to provide more
information to Dean & Provost to aid decision-making
2
o

Motion: 3-Dept & 4-Dept Amended [EDSP] & NO OTHER MODELS to be on 2nd stage ballot for
ranking
o
o

COE Senate Minutes 10/02/2009
 Argument that APAC requirement that new entities in a reorganization structure must
demonstrate fiscal viability; 2 Dept Model shows, provisionally, to be the most “costeffective,” though not necessarily the most promising for enhancing college academic and
other activities
Yes (8), No (9), Abstain (1); Motion Failed
Discussion
 Only the two models garnering >50% “Yes” votes in 1st Stage should be advanced
 Further debate over whether 4-Dept original & amended models represented a nesting that
might not be distinguishable for electorate; arguments on both sides of issue
 Debate over whether 2 Models should be ranked (assigning “points” to each) or voted up
or down
Yes (6), No (9), Abstain (3); Motion Failed
Motion: 3-Dept & 4-Dept Amended [EDSP] to be on 2nd stage ballot for ranking & other models may be
considered for inclusion in subsequent motions
o
o
Discussion: none
Yes (18), No (0), Abstain (0); Motion Carried

Motion: 2-Dept Original & 2-Dept Amended Model to be eliminated from 2nd stage ballot
o Discussion: none
o Yes (9), No (3), Abstain (5); Motion Carried

Motion: 3-Dept & both 4-Dept Original & Amended [EDSP] Models to be on 2nd stage ballot
o Discussion: none
o Yes (5), No (13), Abstain (0); Motion Failed

Motion: 3-Dept 4-Dept Amended [EDSP] Models to be on 2nd stage ballot
o Discussion: none
o Yes (16), No (2), Abstain (5); Motion Carried

Formatting electronic voting process for 3-Dept and 4-Dept Amended [EDSP] Models
o Tabulation by dept, voting bloc will be reported for both models
2nd Stage Voting Procedures for COE Reorganization Models


Start 10/05 @ 08:30 to 10/07 @ 15:00
Bob will transmit voting link to COE electorate
3