By Robert Croker, Provisional Faculty Senate.Executive Committee member

Dear Colleagues,

If you will indulge me I would like to share some thoughts on the most recent process now being undertaken on campus and in Idaho Falls, Meridian and Twin Falls regarding the Idaho State University faculty constitution. It should not be necessary to remind you that ISU President Arthur Vailas was charged in the State Board of Education motion with establishing a “reconstituted faculty structure.” That was done in the form of the Provisional Faculty Senate.
The SBOE then called for that body to develop a constitution and bylaws. You probably do not have to be told how the Provisional Faculty Senate has met every Monday and has labored diligently in drafting the constitution that you voted better than two to one to accept. The document went through numerous revisions as the Provisional Faculty Senate received input from faculty members, was submitted for faculty review, vetted in a public meeting, and finally revised and sent out again for a vote. I know not everyone supports the document and I feel badly that this has caused some to strike out against the Provisional Senate and others who dare to take issue with the administration.

The process we are now undertaking appears to suggest that colleges have not had sufficient time for input into this document. My question is, what input did the Provisional Faculty Senate receive if not input from college faculty? How will this new process be any different than what has already been done? I am deeply concerned with this process and wonder what comes next should the constitution not change as a result of what we are now doing. How much time is needed to review this document and who is it that decides how much time is necessary? Is it really a matter of time, or is it a matter of change?

An argument the administration has made is that we should do away with the hierarchical model of faculty governance that places the Senate as a body through which all curricular issue must pass. Instead, the administration has suggested a distributive model wherein faculty are elected to various committees on campus that handle various issues and none report back to the Senate. On the surface this may sound good. But consider this: The administration can remove any committee that is not falling in step with what they want to happen. One committee has already had this threat leveled against them. Am I the only person that sees a problem with this system? This is very dangerous.
The constitution the Provisional Faculty Senate developed was modeled after Boise State University’s constitution, not as an effort to copy BSU, but to facilitate a very tight time line and work with what has already found approval through the SBOE.

As the Provisional Faculty Senate has worked in the development of this document, the interim Provost has been to nearly every meeting and input provided by her has been minimal during those meetings.
In fact, after the document was completed in its first draft, she sent the Provisional Faculty Senate a lengthy memo of changes that she believed were needed. After receiving that input, as well as input from faculty, the Provisional Faculty Senate’s constitution subcommittee met and revised the document in an attempt to show a willingness to be led by such input.

It would appear that nothing is enough, short of doing exactly what the administration wants, in the creation of this document. The interim Provost has now been charged with summarizing the colleges’ input and forwarding that to the President. Will each college get a copy of the summary first to make sure it is accurate? Will the Provisional Faculty Senate get a copy to see what the President is to act upon? What if the President makes changes to the draft constitution? Will it come back to the Provisional Senate? We know the SBOE has mandated that the constitution be acceptable to the faculty and the President, but faculty acceptance should not be assumed based upon summaries made during these new college meetings.

Each of you has a major responsibility during these college meetings. I would argue that we support the present draft that was voted on. I would argue that the faculty has spoken and now it is time for the President to provide his input. I would argue that the American Association of University Professors’ wording in the preamble is common to many university constitutions and was taken directly from the BSU constitution. We cannot afford to have the wishes of the faculty ignored again. Although the President appears unwilling to compromise on any point, we cannot compromise on what is right and good for ISU. I ask you to give your support to the document voted upon and not give way to the funny number game being played by the administration.