The American Association of University Professors recently addressed a five-page letter to President Shirley Ann Jackson and Board of Trustees Chair Samuel F. Heffner ’56. In this letter, the AAUP wrote a synopsis of its understanding of the events leading up to the suspension of the Faculty Senate. The letter then stated, “We are not aware that the Institute or any part of it faces problems so grave as to warrant the highly unusual actions that the board and administration have taken,” in reference to the suspension of the Senate by the Institute administration earlier this year.
The letter continued, stating, “We find it troubling that the administration appears to believe that the faculty cannot be trusted to govern itself or to maintain the best interests of the entire institution in making decisions in those areas designated as coming within the faculty’s purview principles of shared governance … We recommend that the ‘state of transitional faculty governance’ at RPI be lifted and that the Faculty Senate, as constituted under the Spring 2007 election, be reinstated to its traditional duties and functions.” The letter explained that “The information in our possession on these matters has come to us primarily from faculty sources at RPI.”
The administration responded by replying with a letter signed by Charles F. Carletta, secretary of the Institute and general counsel. The reply stated, “I find it highly irregular that a five-page letter, based on an admittedly biased representation of an internal matter, would emanate from someone within the AAUP without at least the professional courtesy of having contacted Rensselaer’s provost, Dr. Robert Palazzo, Mr. William Walker, vice president of strategic communications and external relations, or me in my capacity as secretary of the Institute, in order to provide a balanced and objective perspective.”
Carletta ended the response, saying that, “The effectuation of that [shared responsibility and cooperative action among the governing board, faculty, and administration in determining educational policy] is, in fact, the intended and expected outcome of the current course of action on our campus.”
Three members of the suspended Faculty Senate came to speak to the Student Senate to give their perspective on the issue: Former President Larry Kagan, Secretary Nancy Campbell, and former Chair of the Faculty Senate Jim Napolitano. Campbell started the conversation with the Student Senate by saying, “We’re not here to lecture you,” and that she “[cares] about the process that leads up to [decisions].” She also explained that the Faculty Senate’s objective right now is to return to its previous state of governance, and that “there is an alliance here that could be struck.”
Disagreements with Palazzo on certain parts of recent events were brought up, namely whether the Faculty Senate had violated regular procedures by sending its plans to expand voting rights to the Board of Trustees, before going through proper channels and showing the changes to Palazzo first.
The faculty members explained that they “were already going through [those channels],” but later passed on the details of their suggested changes to the chairman of the Board of Trustees after he had requested to see them. The faculty also brought to light some of what they referred to as faculty resistance to the administration’s review plans. The faculty detailed how—though every school did submit names of people for the administration to select from to populate the Faculty Governance Review Committee—certain departments were not as subservient and did not want to submit names.
Napolitano ended by saying that “If faculty is going to be involved on the whole, they need to have a role in decisions.”
A faculty vote was held last week in order to approve a resolution stating, “We affirm the legitimacy of the spring 2007 election that was conducted in accordance with the procedures of the Faculty Handbook, and we call for the immediate restoration of the Faculty Senate and its committees to their governance functions.” The vote was consistent with the administration’s requirement that only tenured and tenure-track faculty have voting rights.
The results of the faculty vote were: 200 voting for the resolution, 21 voting against the resolution, and seven abstaining. “This 10-1 margin represents a real rejection of the provost’s plan on the part of the tenure and tenure-track faculty,” stated Kagan in an e-mail after the release of the faculty vote results.
In a statement posted on the Faculty Governance Review Web site regarding the faculty vote, Walker said that, “The information from this unofficial faculty referendum will be discussed with the academic leadership of Rensselaer and shared with the Faculty Governance Review Committee. That group will review it along with the many other factors relating to faculty governance it will study as it considers its recommendations.” The statement continued, however, to say that, “Meanwhile, we are continuing under a Board of Trustees resolution that approved the establishment of the transitional faculty governance structure, including a temporary suspension of the Faculty Senate.”
