January 20, 2010

Room B113, Robinson Hall; 3:00 - 4:07 p m.


Senators Present:  Heibatollah Baghi, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Doris Bitler, Philip Buchanan, Rick Coffinberger, Jose Cortina, Yvonne Demory, Betsy DeMulder, Rutledge Dennis, Penny Earley, Karl Fryxell, Jorge Haddock, Frances Harbour, Margret Hjalmarson, Mark Houck, Dmitrios Ioannou, Bruce Johnsen, David Kuebrich, Howard Kurtz, Terrence Lyons, Linda Monson, Jean Moore, Star Muir, Frank Philpot, Peter Pober, Earle Reybold, Larry Rockwood, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne Slayden, Peter Stearns, June Tangney, Shirley Travis, Iosif Vaisman, Nigel Waters, Harry Wechsler, Phil Wiest, Peter Winant, Michael Wolf-Branigin, Stanley Zoltek.


Senators Absent:  David Anderson, Rei Berroa, Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Lloyd Cohen, Sharon deMonsabert, Kelly Dunne, Martin Ford, Jack Goldstone, Lloyd Griffiths, Kingsley Haynes, Alan Merten, James Olds, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Pierre Rodgers, Tojo Thatchenkery, Susan Trencher, John Zenelis.


Visitors Present: Rick Davis, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Nathan Dorfman, Student Senator and Student Government Liaison; Esther Elstun, Professor emerita, Modern and Classical Languages; ; Linda Harber, Associate Vice President, Human Resources/Payroll;  Robin Herron, Associate Director, Office of Media & Public Relations; Rick Holt, Vice President, Staff Senate;  Susan Jones, University Registrar; Tommy Lee, Student Senator and Student Government Liaison; J. G. McDaniel, Assoc Dean, Business Development and Assoc Provost, Distance Education, CHHS;  Sharon Pitt, Executive Director, DOIT; Claudia Rector, Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs; Linda Schwartzstein, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs/VP for Enrollment Services; Walt Sevon, Executive Director, Technology Systems Division.


I. Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m.


II.  Approval of the Minutes of November 18 and December 2, 2009: 

The minutes of November 18, 2009 were approved as distributed.  The minutes of December 2, 2009 were amended to change “form” to “firm” in Section III, paragraph 16, so that the revised segment reads “...that the BOV has hired a consulting firm to look at the possibility of extending the President's contract.” The minutes were approved as amended.


III.  Announcements

Chair Peter Pober welcomed Senators to a new decade and thanked Dean Shirley Travis and Dean Jorge Haddock for speaking at our meeting today.


Dean Travis:  The College of Health and Human Services has started on a nine-year development plan (January 1, 2006 – 2015).  The College contains the School of Nursing, and three departments:  Global and Community Health, Health Administration and Policy, and Social Work. We expect to add two new departments (Nutrition and Rehabilitative Sciences) by the Fall of 2011, if all moves forward as planned. These will likely be followed by more departments/initiatives in public health.  Faculty interests come together in Health Policy; Economics of Long Term Care, Chronic Disease Management, and Disability.  Collaboration exists not just within CHHS but also with other academic units and faculty across campus.

Question:  As you expand in the next two years, how many faculty lines will be added?  Will they be tenure-line faculty?

Dean Travis: This will be driven by enrollment.  Some FTEs from the Department of Global and Community Health (20%) will move to Nutrition.  As we add programs, we will add faculty--a combination of research and instructional faculty.  Clinical faculty can be tenure or term-line faculty.  A tenure-line faculty member could be a clinical researcher. 

Question: Do you have a connection with any medical schools?

Dean Travis:  We presently have no organizational connections; however, there are possible future opportunities that may include new colleagues and collaboration. 


Dean Haddock, School of Management, thanked the Senate for this first of, hopefully, many visits.  He joined the School of Management about six months ago.  The SOM has five strategic goals:

-1- Increase research output.

-2- Increase collaboration with other schools and centers.

-3- Identify centers of excellence, such as the Center for Real Estate Entrepreneurship, led by Professor Tony Sanders.

-4- Improve teaching quality.

-5- Improve position in rankings of business schools, especially as more students are admitted.  


We are also working with the Volgenau School of Information Technology, the School of Public Policy, and other schools to create joint programs.  Opportunities exist for generating additional revenue from Executive Education Programs, customized programs, full-time MBA and Masters in Accounting programs, as well as fund-raising from external sources. SOM currently seems to be highly respected both by the local community as well as by other schools. 


Provost Stearns: At the Chair's invitation, Provost Stearns noted that GMU is awaiting further news about the state budget.  A public forum has been scheduled for February 10th and will soon be announced.  


IV.  Unfinished Business:  Resolution from the Organization and Operations Committee:  To Ensure Faculty Senate Bylaws and Charter Consistency


The Chair announced that opening statements will be made by Senators Slayden and Muir; after that everyone could talk.  At issue is whether the proposed resolution be ruled out-of-order.  Because this issue was not resolved at our last meeting (December 2, 2009), the requirement for discussion at two subsequent meetings will not start until the motion reaches the floor for discussion.  If the out of order issue is resolved today, then discussion begins and we would vote on the Bylaws change at the next regular meeting of the Faculty Senate. The Chair asked Senator Star Muir to step out of his role as parliamentarian as he presents the motion on behalf of the Organization and Operations Committee.  If the Sergeants at Arms need to act as Parliamentarians, they will do so in collaboration with the Chair. 


Resolution from the Organization and Operations Committee:  To Ensure Faculty Senate Bylaws and Charter Consistency               


Whereas the responsibilities of the Faculty Senate in Section II.A.1 of the Faculty Senate Charter indicate that the Senate shall have “the fundamental general responsibility to speak and act for the General Faculty on matters affecting the University as a whole;” and


Whereas the Charter indicates in Section II.A.2 that the Faculty Senate, “on behalf of the general faculty, shall have the particular responsibility to formulate proposals on those matters affecting the welfare of the university as a whole,” which will constitute the “primary advice to the administration;” and


Whereas the Charter further specifies that on “matters affecting the entire faculty and transcending collegiate unit boundaries, the Senate shall be the primary faculty representative in consultation with the central administration and the President;” and


Whereas the Bylaws in Article I, Section 1 specify that the “membership of the George Mason Faculty Senate and eligibility to vote therein shall be as prescribed by the Charter,” yet there is no prescription of voting eligibility in any section or clause of the Charter; and


Whereas administrators are welcomed and encouraged to participate in dialog and consultation with and as members of the Faculty Senate, yet should not be representing the faculty voice on matters of importance to the faculty and the University;


Be it resolved:


That Article I, Section I of the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate should be amended to strike “and eligibility to vote therein” and add the following sentence at the end:  “Eligibility to vote on matters before the Faculty Senate shall be limited to duly elected faculty members of the Faculty Senate.


Professor Slayden:  Bylaws are subordinate to the Charter of the Faculty Senate.  It is up to the General Faculty to change the Charter. As I have shown using Roberts Rules of Order (see Appendix A), every once in a while organizations may designate different classes of members.  If there is no discrimination, all the rights of membership pertain to each class.  Even if we don't understand the language in the Charter, what is compelling in the minutes of the General Faculty of April 3, 1974 debate clearly shows intention of granting voting rights.  There is nothing bad about out-of-order motions.  I have no objection to changes in voting rights, but propose the following motion: 


That an ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate be established for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Charter of the Faculty Senate for approval by the Faculty Senate. It is also the purpose of this committee to organize a meeting of the General Faculty where the proposed amendments will be debated and voted upon.

(See V. New Business  C.  Motion...)


It would only require 138 members of the General Faculty (and there are 50 members in the Senate) to constitute a quorum. Let us do this easily, cleanly, and properly. 


Professor Star Muir:

1.  On face value, the incorrect document is the Bylaws, which states that the voting privileges are located in the Charter, when they are not.  To revise the Bylaws to remove this statement and specify voting privileges does not, on its face, contradict the Charter.


2.  The issue of intent, drawn from the meetings of the founding of the Charter, is fraught with difficulties.  Two items are worth noting:


-Intent does not override provisions of a document, especially a discussion and a 49-43 vote (hardly unanimous or definitive) of 36 years ago. (Over time, there have been some real changes in the nature and powers of the Deans and Directors as well as the Faculty Senate itself).  This is especially true when there are myriad examples of Faculty Senate Bylaws across the U.S.which specify voting privileges.


-If we closely examine the minutes in question, immediately after the vote was taken to broaden the membership to include administrators, and the amendment to limit voting to faculty was defeated (no vote given), we find the following:


“Professor Pacheco pointed out that there is a constituted Bylaws Committee of the Senate at work, which has formulated provisions whereby these arrangements can be reviewed and revised after a few years.”


If we accept the thesis of the intent argument, then the minutes also explicitly invite the kind of review and revision we are about with this Bylaws amendment.


3.  The Bylaw change would be a reasonably analogous part of parliamentary procedure since there are often general clauses in a Charter that are clarified and sharpened in the Bylaws.  For example, in the George Mason University Faculty Senate Charter, section IC requires that:  Elected Senators shall be members of the constituent Faculties they represent.”  Then in Article I, Section 2 of the Bylaws, details are provided about this clause:


a. The manner by which academic units entitled to representation in the Faculty Senate elect their senators shall be determined by the faculty of those units.

b. The presiding officer of each collegiate unit shall certify by May 15 to the Chair of the Faculty Senate names of the Senators chosen. Terms of Senators shall begin at the opening of the first Senate meeting of the academic year.

c. Current records of the membership of the Senate shall be maintained by the Secretary for use by the Chair of the Senate and the Parliamentarian.


4.      There are ample precedents for constraining voting through specifications and status differentiations in Faculty Senate Bylaws:  Examples from the University of Virginia, University of Louisville, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Northern Illinois University appear in Appendix B.


In sum, there is no direct contradiction between the Bylaws and the Charter, and the Bylaws change corrects an inappropriate wording in the Bylaws.  Intent is not definitive, and if followed closely, actually encourages us to use the Bylaws to make these changes, something also supported by past precedents and other common University practice to specify voting privileges in the Bylaws.  Accordingly, the motion is not out of order. 


Professor Slayden:  The intent to enfranchise Administrators was very clear in two votes:  a majority written vote of 49 to 43 and also a second voice vote. With all due respect to Professor Pacheco, she was incorrect to say that our Bylaws can be used to revise our Charter.  It is, in principle, correct to say that bylaws can be used to change membership if there is no charter-- if no superior document exists.  However, we cannot make motions to change our Bylaws if these motions conflict with our Charter, a superior document. 


Chair Pober:  Is the motion out of order?  As Chair, I can ask the organization to vote and make a decision; I will not decide as Chair.   


At the request of a Senator, paper ballots were distributed, collected, and counted by the Sergeants at Arms.  The motion failed: 17 votes in favor, 22 opposed.  As a result, the Motion moved to the floor for discussion.


Discussion:  Senator Muir spoke in favor of the Motion for limiting voting rights to duly elected members of the Senate.  He also noted that it would be interesting to examine the attendance patterns of the Deans and Directors, who usually do not attend Senate meetings. And he pointed out that Dean Censer, in his recent remarks to the Senate (November 18, 2009), stated that he did not attend Senate meetings because he considers the Senate to be a Faculty Senate and so only Faculty should vote.  Under the existing rules, Administrators have the privilege to vote without shouldering the full responsibility of being Senators. 


Senator Slayden:  While I am in sympathy with this motion, the fact still remains that Roberts Rules say this is an improper motion, a continuing breach of rules of the Faculty Senate.  I have raised this matter in a forum of parliamentarians. Their response was that in the case of a serious breach of the proper rules of order, there will be a Senate body at some point that will correct the violation. Until that is done, there will be a specter over the proceedings of the Senate. Therefore, I feel compelled to encourage a vote against the Motion because it is null and void and will constitute a continuing breach. 

Senator Bennett, Chair of the Nominations Committee, noted that each fall we get a list of committee memberships; to my knowledge, no administrator has ever served on any committee of the Faculty Senate.  If administrators wish to vote, they should serve on committees 


Senator:  It would put administrators in a difficult position if they were asked to serve on faculty committees.  Having drafted a Charter and Bylaws in the past which assumed one category of membership, would it not now be cleaner to change the Charter?


The Chair asked if there is any objection to changing the Charter itself? He pointed out that we are not voting on the Motion today. We can address the Motion to create an ad hoc committee as New Business. 


Senator:  I disagree with the idea that there will be an on-going “dark cloud” hanging over our heads, as Senator Slayden suggests, if we decide to change the Bylaws. We have the power to amend our Bylaws.  As organizations get larger, some alterations are necessary. It’s part of their life-cycle. This is such a needed change. It’s appropriate that Administrators no longer have voting rights. 


Senator:  Are there any rules about the attendance of Faculty Senators or their participation on committees? 

The Chair responded that a list of attendance is posted on the Senate Website at the end of the academic year.  There is no procedure to monitor committee attendance, no protocol to censure, etc. 


Senator:  What is the definition of a quorum?

Chair:  There must be 26 Senators present (out of 50) for a quorum.


Senator:  This is more a matter of separation of powers than attendance. The issue is who is to be empowered to speak for the General Faculty. 

The Motion will remain on the agenda for the next meeting (February 10, 2010). 


V.  New Business – Committee Reports


A.  Senate Standing Committees


Executive Committee – Peter Pober, Chair

I cannot put into words my thanks to Rector Volgenau, who joined us at our last Executive Committee meeting (January 13th) to discuss the proper role of the Senate and Faculty in the current process of considering the extension of President Merten's contract.  At the meeting it was agreed that the Nominations Committee would issue a “Call for Nominees:  Faculty Committee to Evaluate the President” which was circulated last week. After the Evaluation Committee has completed its work, its report will be relayed to the BOV through the Senate Chair (as a non-voting member of the BOV).


Professor Bennett, Chair of the Nominations Committee, added that so far, one Faculty Senator and three other Faculty have volunteered.  At first we thought we would have after spring break, but have learned that the results will be needed in a couple of weeks.  So he said it would be helpful if Senators were not to volunteer. If there were no additional volunteers, it would not be necessary to hold an election, and this would allow the Committee additional working time.


 The Chair responded that he “was unable to hear” the Chair of the Nominations Committee. 


Academic Policies – no report.


Budget and Resources – Rick Coffinberger, Chair

We have no new information about the one-day furlough proposed by Governor Kaine.  We received another update on salary data which will, hopefully, soon be posted.  Because there was so much data (10 years' worth), we decided to post only the most recent five years. The budget scenario is very uncertain because of the economy and the change in governors. Governor Kaine's budget proposal includes no pay raises for state employees/faculty for two more years. (If this stands, there will be a total of four years with no pay raises). If you are in VSRS, you may soon have to contribute money toward your pension. Over a two-year period, GMU may absorb roughly a 26% budget reduction if no more federal or state money is made available. Such serious budget cuts mean students will have to pony up more tuition.

Faculty Matters – Doris Bitler, Chair

If you have suggestions for changes or formatting of the Faculty Evaluation of Administrators survey, please email me ( by February 1st. We are also working on Bookstore issues as well as proposed increases in membership rates for campus (sports) facilities. 


Nominations – Jim Bennett Chair

Writing Across the Curriculum Committee:  Joan Bristol is nominated to replace Ben Carlton as representative from CHSS; and Tamara Maddox is nominated to replace Aimee Flannery as representative from VSITE.  No further nominations were made from the floor.  The nominees were elected unanimously. 


Organization and Operations


B.  Other Committees – None.


C.  Motion to Establish an Ad Hoc Committee to Propose Amendments to the

           Charter of the Faculty Senate – Suzanne Slayden

That an ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate be established for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Charter of the Faculty Senate for approval by the Faculty Senate. It is also the purpose of this committee to organize a meeting of the General Faculty where the proposed amendments will be debated and voted upon.


The motion was seconded. 


Senator Bennett: As Chair of the Nominations Committee and one who is familiar with the charges of the various committees, I think it is improper to set up an ad hoc committee to supersede the charge of a standing committee.  (He read aloud the charge of the Organization and Operations Committee, as appears below.)


Organizations and Operations Committee
Charge: This Committee shall be responsible for expediting Senate business and furthering the service of the Senate to the University. Its functions shall include but not be limited to:
A. Recommending the establishment, terms, and charges of new committees or other modifications of committee structure;
B. Making recommendations concerning any operating rules of the Senate that may be necessary;
C. Annually reviewing the bylaws so that it can recommend appropriate changes as needed; receiving proposed amendments to the bylaws and, after consideration, making recommendations to the Faculty Senate concerning such proposed amendments.
D. Establishing in accordance with the provisions of the Charter the number of Senators to which each participating unit of the University is entitled.


All business to come before the Senate should be first submitted to this committee which shall refer items requiring study and action to the appropriate standing committee or appropriate collegial faculty. This Committee shall report its referrals to the next regular meeting of the Senate. This does not prohibit the introduction of items of new business from the floor.  (Revised March 2006)


Senator:  We are getting caught up in a lot of red tape. We need to attend to the business of the University.


Senator Slayden:  The Bylaws, in Article V, c. provide for the establishment of ad hoc committees:

c. "Ad Hoc Committees" shall be those established by the Senate for consideration of special or transient issues. If no time limit is specified, the committee is deemed to serve until it issues a final report or until the Senate acts to dissolve it.

Senator:  The O&O charge states “include, but not be limited to,” so it would seem there is no need to create an ad hoc committee. 


Senator:   If the O&O Committee is not willing to amend the Charter, then we may need an ad hoc committee.


Senator:  Speaking as a member of O&O, I’ll point out that we won't determine our position until our Chair, who is away on a family emergency, returns. Then we can meet to discuss whether it would be advisable to create an ad hoc committee.


 Chair: I’m not advocating one position or another, but I will point out that the Motion could be tabled until the next meeting.


Senator:  Can we refer this issue to O&O?

A motion was made and seconded to refer the motion to the O&O Committee.


Senator Slayden stated that referring the Motion to O&O creates a conflict of interest.  Also, much business has been charged to the Committee which has not been done. We should not unduly burden them with yet another matter.  The membership of an ad hoc committee could include members of O&O.


Senator Houck stated that, as a member of O&O, he did not believe that any conflict of interest exists.  The committee members thought the request to consider the voting rights of Senate members--both elected and ex officio--to be important, and an appropriate way to effect change was through the process just approved by the Senate.  However, this does not imply the committee was antagonistic to a process involving a general faculty meeting.  The O&O Committee would be an appropriate, reasonable, and fair body to consider further action with regard to a general faculty meeting to amend the Faculty Senate Charter.


Senator:  I do not see a problem with waiting for O&O as we have already waited for 36 years.


Motion to Refer to O&O approved by voice vote.


VI. Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty


A schedule of School of Music Performances for Spring 2010 was distributed. Faculty are encouraged to attend these world-class programs. 


Thanks to Joy Hughes, Vice President and CIO, Information Technology Unit and Professor Stanley Zoltek, Chair of the Technology Policy Committee, for the simplification of passwords to log into Patriot Web. 


Several faculty have noticed new signs in the faculty parking lot (next to the lot removed for construction) restricting some spaces to car-pool and fuel-efficient vehicles.  There are plans (not yet fully developed) for lowering the parking fee for fuel-efficient vehicles.  One Senator spoke in favor of incentivizing the use of fuel-efficient vehicles in this way, noting that special front-row parking spaces once existed for compact vehicles. Another Senator noted that because faculty have individualized teaching schedules and some teach on more than one campus, it is difficult to create carpools. 


It was noted that the Executive Committee had a productive discussion with Rector Volgenau about the importance of following the Faculty Handbook regarding faculty participation in the presidential review process for possible reappointment (or extension of his contract.) The Chair has already written the Rector, thanking him for the meeting. It was also suggested that the Senate pass a motion expressing its appreciation.


VII.  Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

David Kuebrich


Faculty Senate



Background Information regarding membership and voting in the Faculty Senate

The motion to amend the Faculty Senate bylaws to limit voting eligibility is improper because it conflicts with the Charter of the Faculty Senate. The bylaws are subordinate to the Charter.

The Charter explicitly defines Membership in the Faculty Senate; voting rights for all members are implicit, as explained by the definition of "membership" in Robert's Rules of Order. Furthermore, it was the expressed will of the General Faculty at the meeting during which the Charter was approved to extend voting rights to all members (Minutes, April 3,1974).

To restrict voting privileges of some members of the Faculty Senate or to change the membership, the Charter must be amended by the General Faculty.

[For a more comprehensive review, click the links.]

The hierarchy of governing documents:

Faculty Handbook
Charter from the General Faculty establishing a Faculty Senate
Bylaws of the Faculty Senate

Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th ed. [RONR]
p. 11 footnote
“The word charter …granting the right to form a particular local or subordinate unit. … it supersedes any rules the subordinate body may adopt, because it carries with it the requirement that the subordinate unit adopt no rules that conflict with those of the grantor.”

Faculty Handbook [full text]

“With the exception of the bylaws governing the University’s Board of Visitors, the provisions of this Handbook supersede all inconsistent bylaws, policies and procedures in effect at the time of its adoption….”

“…the General Faculty delegates by Charter to the Faculty Senate the responsibility for governance at the university level.”

“Under powers delegated to it by the General Faculty, the Faculty Senate is….”

Charter [full text]

“In extraordinary circumstances, the General Faculty may, by the following procedure, reverse specific decisions of the Senate:…”

“The General Faculty may amend the Senate Charter by the following procedure:…”

Faculty Senate Bylaws [full text]

“The membership of the George Mason Faculty Senate and eligibility to vote therein shall be as prescribed by the Charter adopted April 3,1974 by the General Faculty of George Mason University, clarified by the General Faculty May 21,1975 and amended March 22, 1976, December 15, 1987, April 12, 1989, and March 30, 1994.”


I. Membership of the Faculty Senate
A. Members
President of the University
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
The Deans of the Colleges and Independent Schools
One Independent Institute Director designated by the
Directors of the Independent Institutes
Director of the University Libraries
Fifty Faculty Members Elected from the Collegiate Units


Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th ed. [RONR]
p. 3 lines 8 -12
"A member of the assembly…is a person having the right to full participation in its proceedings –… the right to make motions, to speak in debate on them, and to vote. Some organized societies define different classes of “membership”, not all of which may include this status. Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as “voting members” when it is necessary to make a distinction."

[Because of RONR, there is no specific mention of voting rights for any of the membership listed in the Charter since no distinction was intended (see Minutes April 3, 1974). The sentence in the bylaws should be read as:

“The membership of the George Mason Faculty Senate and [thus] eligibility to vote therein shall be as prescribed by the Charter ….”

Minutes of the General Faculty Meeting, April 3, 1974 [full text]

…moved that section IA be amended to include the Deans of the several undergraduate Schools as voting members of the Faculty Senate….
…change the wording of his amendment to include the Deans of Colleges and independent schools as voting members of the Faculty Senate…
The amendment passed by a standing vote of 49-43.

…amendment that the following wording be substituted for the last sentence in section IA: "Voting membership of the Faculty Senate shall consist of thirty-six elected Faculty members from the several Colleges and independent Schools."
The amendment failed by a show of hands.

…The Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Recommend Changes in the Faculty Senate as amended passed without opposition in a voice vote.







University of Virginia  Constitution and Bylaws





Members of the Faculty who hold the following administrative positions shall be ex officio members with voice and without vote, except that in the case of a tie vote, the President shall cast the deciding vote:


    * The President

    * The University Vice-Presidents

    * The deans of the schools of the University

    * The University Librarian


There shall be eighty (80) elected members of the Faculty Senate, allocated among the constituent Faculties of the University of Virginia (in Charlottesville) in accordance with the following formulas: the Faculty of each School (except the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences) shall elect the number which is closest to the percentage of eighty (80) which is derived by taking the average of (a) the percentage of the total full-time professorial faculty of the University of Virginia (in Charlottesville) who hold their primary appointment in that School, and (b) the percentage of the total number of full-time students at the University of Virginia (in Charlottesville) who are enrolled in that School. In computing the number of students, full-time House Staff of the University Hospital shall be included with the number of students in the School of Medicine, and post-doctoral fellows in all Schools of the University shall be counted as students in that School. The enrollment of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences shall be counted with that of the College of Arts and Sciences for purposes of this computation. In computing the number of faculty on which representation is to be based:


   1. Persons on leave of absence shall be counted, but persons on leave and persons serving solely as their replacements shall not both be counted.

   2. Persons holding professorial appointments in more than one faculty shall be counted only in the faculty of their primary affiliation.


The first appointment of seats on the Faculty Senate shall be based on the figures for faculty and students compiled for the year in which this Constitution is adopted, and reapportionment shall be accomplished biennially thereafter.



University of Louisville Bylaws of the Faculty Senate





1.      The total voting membership of the Faculty Senate shall not exceed 70.


2.      The Staff Senate and the Student Senate shall each have one ex officio voting member and one ex officio nonvoting member. In the absence of the voting member, the nonvoting member may vote.


3.      Each unit shall have at least two voting senators to be elected by the full-time faculty of the unit.


4.      Part-time faculty senators have full voting rights.


5.      The number of additional senators to be elected by the respective faculty of the units shall be determined as follows:       


a.       The number of senators from each unit as provided by Section III.B.3 and the voting members from the Staff and Student Senate shall be subtracted from 64.


b.      The number of each unit faculty shall be divided by the total faculty and the result multiplied by the number of senate seats available determined by Section III.B.4.a. Such numbers, if fractional, shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. In the event that the above formulation results in a voting membership of the Faculty Senate in excess of 64, the Committee on Committees and Credentials shall reduce the total number to 64 by sequentially removing one senator each from those units with the largest representation, beginning with the largest unit. No more than one senator shall be removed from any one unit at the time of reapportionment.



Virginia Commonwealth University Faculty Senate Bylaws


Section 2. Composition of the Faculty Senate


a. Members of the Faculty, as defined in Article III, who are not serving in administrative positions at or above the level of Department Chair are eligible to be members of the Senate.


b. There are four categories of Senator:


(i) Elected Senators are elected as specified below in Section 5, and have full debating and voting privileges.


(ii) Senators at Large: In those instances when it is necessary for their continued membership on the Senate, the Corresponding Secretary Elect, the Recording Secretary-Treasurer Elect, the Vice President Elect, the President Elect, the Campus Representatives Elect, and the outgoing President of the Senate shall be Senators at Large with full rights of membership and shall occupy specially created Senate seats for one year.


(iii) Honorary Senators: In addition to the membership identified above, the Executive Committee will, as specified in the Standing Rules, appoint Honorary Faculty Senators, with rights of discussion in Senate proceedings, but with no voting rights.


(iv) Alternate Senators: Alternate Senators are elected as specified below in Section 5. They serve as substitutes, with full debating and voting privileges, for Elected Senators from their school when the latter are unable to attend a meeting.


c. The term "Voting Senator" shall refer to Elected Senators, Senators at Large, and Alternate Senators when they are serving as substitutes.



Northern Illinois University Faculty Senate Bylaws




1.1 Voting Members


    1.11 Definition of Voting Members


        The Faculty Senate shall consist of faculty members, as defined in Article 2, Sections 2.21 and 2.22 of the University Constitution and Article 12, Section 12.22 of the University Bylaws.

1.2 Nonvoting Members


    1.21 Any faculty member of the University Advisory Committee (UAC) to the Board of Trustees who is not a voting member of the Faculty Senate shall be an ex officio nonvoting member.


    1.22 If not otherwise a member of the Faculty Senate the faculty representative to the Illinois Board of Higher Education Faculty Advisory Committee shall be an ex officio nonvoting member.


    1.23 If they are not otherwise voting members of the Faculty Senate, the faculty serving as assistant chairs of the Academic Planning Council, the Graduate Council, and the Undergraduate Coordinating Council, shall sit as ex officio nonvoting members of the Senate during their terms of office.


    1.24 The Supportive Professional Staff member of the University Council shall serve as an ex officio nonvoting member.




In sum, there is no direct contradiction between the Bylaws and the Charter, and the Bylaws change corrects an inappropriate wording in the Bylaws.  Intent is not definitive, and if followed closely, actually encourages us to use the Bylaws to make these changes, something also supported by past precedents and other common University practice to specify voting privileges in the Bylaws.