September 11, 2009

University Senate

MINUTES: SECOND Meeting of the Villanova University Senate for Academic Year 2009-2010 in Bartley Hall 2001 on Friday, SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 at 3:30 P.M.

PRESENT: Dr. Robert Styer, Chairperson; Mr. Bryan Kerns, Executive Secretary; Dr. Joseph Dellapenna, Parliamentarian Dr. Chiji Akoma; Dr. Kevin Buckley; Dr. Lillian (Boots) Cassel; Mr. Robert J. Capone ’62; Mr. Thomas Carlin; Dr. Sohail Chaudhry; Mr. Ryan Conway; Mr. James Danko; Rev. Kail Ellis, OSA; Dr. Louise Fitzpatrick; Mr. Walter J. Fleming; Dr. Beth Hassel; Ms. Nicole Harmuth; Ms. Maggie Holtgreive; Dr. John R. Johannes; Mrs. Selma Koury-Wunderlich ’58 (representing Alumni Association President ); Dr. Sarvesh Kulkarni; Ms. Dorothy Malloy, Esq.; Mr. John Marrah; Mr. Edward Mentry; Mr. Gilbert Morejon; Ms. Meghan Mogan; Dr. R. Emmet McLaughlin; Dr. Victoria McWilliams; Mr. Vincent Nicastro; Mr. Michael Powers; Mrs. Mary Quilter; Mr. Tahir Qadeer; Dr. Donna Shai; Rev. John Stack, OSA; Mr. Kenneth Valosky; Dr. Fayette Veverka; Dr. Barbara Wall; Ms. Lindsey Waters; Dr. Thomas Way;

Ms. Helen Heron, Recording Secretary

ABSENT: Mr. Stephen Fugale (Notified In Advance-Unable to Attend); Dr. Gary Gabriele (NIA); Mr. Robert Nashak (NIA); Ms. Leighann Reilly; Dr. Joyce Willens (NIA)




Friday, September 11, 2009


Please silence all cell phones. Please put your nameplate at your place for attendance purposes

INVOCATION – Dr. Thomas Way

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the May 1, 2009 Meeting
a) Welcome to all the new Senators
b) The Senate requests that each member read Article VII in the Constitution
regarding the absences of Senators at Senate Meetings


After a Senator misses more than two consecutive and/or more than three total meetings during the academic year, the Chairperson of the Senate shall direct a letter of inquiry to the specific Senator involved requesting information about said Senator’s ability to serve and his/her intentions regarding attendance at future meetings.

A. Mr. Ken Valosky, Vice President for Administration and Finance –The Impact the Recession Is Having on Villanova
B. Mr. Vincent Nicastro, Director of Athletics – Update on the Designated Supplier Program and the Russell Athletic Issue


VI. REPORT FROM STUDENT GOVERNMENT ON 2009-2010 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES – Mr. Daniel Gelwicks, Student President






The scheduled meetings for FIRST SEMESTER Academic Year 2009-10 are:
Friday, October 23, 2009 – Bartley 2001 – 3:30 PM
Friday, December 4, 2009 – Bartley 2001- 3:30 PM
(President’s Annual Address)


The Chair, Dr. Robert Styer, called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM.

INVOCATION – Senator Thomas Way

On this day eight years ago, the tragic events of September 11th took thousands of our kindred spirits from us in New York, Pennsylvania and Northern Virginia, leaving behind a profound sadness and a lingering and acute sense of loss. Let us remember what was lost on that day but rather than submit to our grief, let us resolve to continue moving forward and doing good for those around us even as we embrace the sorrow of that day.

Mahatma Gandhi said, “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it... always.”

As we enter this fresh academic year, filled with great hope, renewed energy and a very long list of things to do, let us remember that looking back and reflecting from time to time is necessary even if it is painful. As Albert Einstein noted, “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.”

May we learn from yesterday's challenges and mistakes, cherishing today and each other as we work together in this senate to improve tomorrow for our community of Villanova University.

The Chair thanked Senator Way for his prayer.

The Chair, Dr. Styer offered a motion to amend the minutes.
Replace Section III (A) as follows:

Senator Malloy made a motion to nominate the following names:


Senator Quilter made a motion to nominate the following names:


By consensus, Senator Stack was elected to the Executive Committee.
The Chair failed to call for a formal vote for the remaining administrative seat, resulting in confusion about the outcome.

The amendment was seconded by Senator Cassel, voted on and passed. The minutes were approved as amended.

At this point, Senator Styer motioned that the order of the day be amended to allow a vote to fill the remaining administrative seat on the Executive Committee. The motion passed unanimously.

The Chair then requested nominations. Senator Quilter nominated Senator Hassel. Father Stack nominated Senator Wall.

A motioned was entertained and approved to close nominations.

Senator Wall and Senator Hassel each requested to be removed from consideration for the seat.

Senator Dellapenna motioned that the vote on the vacant administrative seat be postponed until the October meeting. Senator Malloy seconded the motion.

FAVOR 33                   OPPOSED 1                    ABSTAIN 3

The motion was passed.


a. The Senate requests that each member read Article VII in the Constitution
regarding the Absence of Senators at Senate meetings.


After a Senator misses more than two consecutive and/or more than
three total meetings during the academic year, the Chairperson of the
Senate shall direct a letter of inquiry to the specific Senator involved,
requesting information about said Senator’s ability to serve and
his/her intentions regarding attendance at future meetings.

b. The Chairperson welcomed all new senators.


Mr. Kenneth Valosky, Vice President for Administration and Finance

Senator Valosky began by stating the University’s primary concerns as they attempted to respond to this economic crisis and what actions were taken. He started out by addressing the stock market free-fall and the credit market crisis. This gave them the most concern as they were worried as to whether the students and their families could access credit in order to pay for their education. He noted a palpable sense of panic from those on Wall Street.

He remarked that they wanted to make sure that there were no reductions in the University’s work force. He noted how much the university has benefited from the dedication and loyalty of its faculty and staff. They did not want to be in a position of regretting any decisions that they would make. He cited the salary freeze as an example of one of those decisions. He felt that if they were to award the salary increase and then, in turn, have to begin to lay employees off because they had laid out the $5 million it would be detrimental to all. A pay freeze would preserve their financial flexibility, while the $1500 bonus helped the lower paid staff. With regard to the hiring freeze, they did not want to be in a position in having to lay off some employees or let people go that were just hired.

He noted that the University has just undertaken an operating expense review where all areas of the University were required to submit a plan for reduction for the next fiscal year of 5% of their non-salaried operating expense budgets. This would amount to approximately $2.5 million a year.

He explained the actions that were taken in response to the lowest tuition increase in 35 years and a 9% increase in university-funded undergraduate aid. He added that this was still not sufficient in that they have overspent their financial aid budget for the current year by approximately $2 million. He noted again that they took into consideration what would be the impact on the students and their families.

Senator Valosky reiterated that they should continue to have sufficient cash reserves in place to meet our payroll, bills and construction projects. He felt as though all of the measures that were taken were most prudent.

He remarked that our strength has been our efficient operations and reported that this last fiscal year was no different. He commented that all areas of the University delivered a favorable budget performance. This had enabled them to continue with the Campus Master Plan implementation, for example, Dougherty Hall, Fedigan and Admissions. He stated that over the next two summers, we will go forward to seek Board approval for the renovation of Sullivan and Sheehan. This will also be the beginning of the Pedestrian Experience on campus. This can be done because of the favorable budget variances. He added that Father Peter, even though at that time there was some uncertainty about these decisions, was clear that he did not want these issues lingering in people’s minds. He wanted to make these decisions now so that we could plan and move forward.

He observed that the endowment is still down. They had a high point of $355 million and at this point in time they only have $280 million. He noted that many prestigious schools such as Harvard and Yale took significant hits as well. He referred to the PA state budget crisis and noted that it also impacts us. The students have not received their funding from the state for tuition grants. If the students need the refund money, the university has honored that. This leaves the university a deficit of another million dollars, awaiting the resolution of the state budget crisis.

He finished by saying that he is proud of the discipline that the University has displayed and that it has put us in a good position to weather this crisis.

Senator Cassel asked that since the incoming enrollment was met, does that mean that the upper class was able to return as well? Senator Valosky replied that they had spent a fair amount of time on what the retention looked like last year at registration which gives them a good indication of future enrollment. He added that tuition billing goes out in July and remarked that they have not seen any type of drop in the retention of returning students. They had budgeted for the incoming freshman class consisting of 1,630 students. The last count for incoming students was 1,647.

The Chairperson thanked Senator Valosky for his presentation.

Mr. Vincent Nicastro, Director of Athletics

Russell Athletic
Athletics has been actively tracking the activities surrounding Russell's Jerzees deHonduras manufacturing facility for the past 18 months. There were a number of workers’ rights issues that had been identified through independent audits by two agencies which we are members of (Fair Labor Association and the Workers' Rights Consortium). These issues were not being proactively addressed to our satisfaction by Russell. As a result, we made the decision to not renew their licensing agreement when it expired at the end of June, 2009.

Designated Supplier Program
The Designated Supplier Program (DSP) is an initiative being led by the Workers' Rights Consortium (WRC) to effectively "pre-certify" factories around the world which produce branded apparel for the collegiate marketplace. The objective is to insure that companies are providing appropriate factory conditions, wages, workers' rights, etc. In the spring we reinforced our commitment to the principles of the DSP, while having some questions pertaining to the implementation plan (legal, economic, operational). We have continued to work closely with the WRC leadership in evaluating this program. At this time, we are not ready to fully adopt the DSP due to the implementation issues that remain unresolved. However, we are working on a draft of a formal letter to the WRC which will inform them of our commitment to the principles of the DSP.

The Chairperson thanked Senator Nicastro for his update.


Our committees are all staffed and have active agendas for the coming year, though all are prepared to be responsive to needs and interests of the faculty.

Committee On Faculty
Jointly a committee of the Faculty Congress and of the Senate.

Awards Subcommittee
COF will make standards, procedures and policies related to the existing awards and any new ones that come about. Award criteria will be specific enough to assure that the award represents an achievement that will be valued, but not so specific that a suitable candidate is very difficult to find each year.
The awards subcommittee will manage the call for nominees, review of nominations and selection of award recipients. They will report to the COF, which will approve the selections unless there is a serious flaw in the process.

Academic Policy Committee
• Continue work on the Faculty Handbook revisions.
• Manage procedures for the Gallen Award. A separate subcommittee continues to organize the process.
• Continue to follow up on the status of the proposed parental leave policy.
• Investigate the possibility of a distinguished professor for service recognition.
• Further consideration of the evaluation of teaching at VU, esp. the CATS process.
• Formation of an ad-hoc committee on scholarship in the digital age. APC and Joe Lucia are sponsoring this effort.
• Discussion of departmentality, programs, centers and interdisciplinary work.
• Faculty governance of programs, centers, etc.
• Whatever else members wish to put on the agenda.
• An elections committee is staffed. Elections will be held later in the year.

Faculty Handbook
The FC sponsored an open forum for discussion of proposed changes in the Faculty Handbook last Spring. The session was lively and raised a number of valid issues with the proposed changes. Further revisions are under review and an additional faculty forum will be scheduled when the committee representatives and Dr. Johannes have met to discuss the current status.

General Themes for the Coming Year:

A number of things happened last year that could have been handled differently with a bit more attention to the form of communication used. What we can do to make a positive impact on communication related issues will be a general theme. (Travel policy, faculty handbook, Activity Insight, etc.).

FTNTTF and Adjunct Faculty Issues
• There are connections with the handbook.
• There was a survey of department chairs and program directors last Spring. We will continue the process of determining the role of the FTNTTF across the university then consider recommendations.
• Parking Committee report.
• Voluntary contributions from faculty to assist students with special financial needs.
• The Faculty Congress is open to learning about and addressing issues of interest or concern to the faculty.

VI. REPORT FROM STUDENT GOVERNMENT ON 2009-2010 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES – Mr. Daniel Gelwicks, Student President

Senator Gelwicks began his presentation by stating that the focus of the SGA for this academic year is leadership, unity and communication. He stated that as leaders of this organization they want to be open to all student organizations. He wants them to be able bring their concerns to the SGA. He stated that they are using VU groups this year to connect all of the student organizations. He noted that there are twelve hundred students on “MY NOVA” and seventy organizations in the VU groups. The organizations must join these groups in order to get their budgets.

He remarked that this year they will have a student senator on the Executive Committee and are trying to incorporate all of the student senators into SGA. This will allow them much more involvement with the student body. There is a position on the Student Board that is strictly for communication between all of the student groups. There will be ten committees with two chiefs-of-staff to whom they will report.

• Campus Improvements - works with the physical changes on campus
• Dining Services – communication with the student’s needs in the dining hall.
• Judicial Affairs – works with Public Safety
• Residence Life Affairs – working on a new housing program
• Students Ideas and Solutions - a new committee formed to come up with new ideas and events
• External Affairs- deals with the community
• Nova Nation- promotes athletics across the university
• Philanthropy – internal service organization
• Public Relations – marketing group
• Recruitment Development – plan social events and recruitments



The Chair, Senator Styer, began by explaining the history of the issue. He stated that approximately four years ago there was an increase in parking fees. The University Senate created a committee to investigate the parking situation. At that time, the committee made several recommendations. One of the decisions was that this topic be revisited in three years. Last year an ad hoc committee was formed and chaired by Dr. Rick Eckstein. That committee presented five recommendations. Senator Styer asked for a motion that the members of the ad hoc committee be given privilege of the floor. Senator Cassel presented the motion. Senator Akoma seconded the motion.

Senator Valosky thanked all of the members of the ad hoc committee for all of their time and effort devoted to this issue.

Chief David Tedjeske, Director of Public Safety, gave a brief overview of the information compiled throughout the summer.


• Senate endorse that student parking eligibility be based on catalogue year rather than credit year.
(ad hoc committee - unanimous)

Chief Tedjeske noted that historically the eligibility for an on-campus parking pass was based on the number of credits. The student representatives requested that it be based on catalogue year vs. number of credits. He reported that over the summer they reviewed how many students were in their third catalogue year, but had not reached junior status which would be sixty credits. They found the number was relatively small. They decided rather than disadvantage the students who were counting on the use of a car because they would be hitting that sixty credit mark; they would just add “catalogue year or sixty credits” whichever comes first.

Senator Valosky remarked that those students, who were juniors from a credit
standpoint, but sophomores from a catalogue standpoint, were required to park in the Main Lot. He felt there was nothing to be gained by not allowing those students to park on campus.

Senator Stack commented that the freshman and sophomores are told that they may not have cars on campus. He noted that in former years there was a problem with housing where credits determined the class year. This gave people a jump on the lottery to move ahead. The situation was corrected by using the year of admissions. He felt as though it was not quite fair. Additionally, he feels as though there needs to be parking spots for people who present a reason for specific needs. He thinks that keeping it at the class year would allow parking places to be available for those exceptions.

Senator Wall asked for clarification on Senator Stack’s comments by asking if there might be situations that are exceptions but necessary due to certain circumstances that we would want to ensure. She suggested adding the following words to the amendment “as well as exceptions that are necessary due to certain circumstances”. Father Stack was interested in how many students had enough credits to qualify as a junior which allowed them parking one year ahead of their time.

Senator Wall called for a motion to amend the resolution to read.

US 0911-2-1: RESOLVED: “Senate endorse that the student parking eligibility be based on catalogue year or sixty credit minimum, whichever comes first”
Senator Valosky seconded the motion.

The amendment to the motion was voted on and passed.

Chief Tedjeske noted that the special exceptions in the freshman class are for medical reasons. In the sophomore year, geared more towards employment. He also noted that they have been using credits and allowing the exceptions for the most part. He noted that, given the current economic conditions, more students have jobs now and that it did not seem fair to essentially deny more people than in the past.

Senator Gelwicks questioned whether taking those spots away would help to resolve the issue. Chief Tedjeske responded by saying that the Main Lots have consistently had enough space to handle the demand. He did not feel it would have much impact on this issue.

Senator Gelwicks asked if the small lot next to Moriarity is not just for visitors only from 7 AM to 3 PM. He remarked that many students have been late for class recently because there were not enough spots left in the Main Lot anymore.

Chief Tedjeske noted that in the first few weeks of school, there is a “ramp up” time and that after that, the situation stabilizes. He also noted that they have looked at some of their interior campus lots for employees, for example the SAC garage. He explained that previously there was a waiting list for staff. After studying the situation he found that there are many unused spaces in SAC, therefore, that waiting list has been eliminated. Many of the employees who initially parked in the Main Lot now park in SAC at no loss to anyone. Therefore, much more space has been created in the Main Lot.

Senator Quilter asked if the waiting list has been eliminated and requested further discussion on that matter. She noted that her office had been turned down for a faculty spot because the waiting list was too long.

Professor Eckstein, Chair of the Parking Committee, wanted to point out that the new recommendation with new wording is different from the sentiment that came out of the committee. This was to have less students parking. He feels as though this would contradict the spirit of the recommendation.

Senator Gelwicks agreed that with the confidence of Chief Tedjeske, it would not have as much of an effect as anticipated. He felt that taking care of the students who are catalogue year juniors or credit year juniors was a prudent move on their part.
The Senate passed the motion as amended:

A vote was taken on US 0911-2-1 with the following favorable result:

FAVOR 31                OPPOSED 4                     ABSTAIN 1+1


• Senate endorse a new committee (ad hoc or standing), coordinated by SGA and including the Director of Public Safety, to address other issues such as but not limited to:
-- late night main lot parking
-- overnight parking in St. Mary’s F/S lot
(ad hoc committee - (unanimous)

Senator Valosky’s view on Recommendations #2 and # 4 is that we have many avenues for the discussion of parking to be brought forward to the University Administration. He cited, as an example, that last summer SGA approached him regarding junior nursing students who would have gone to West Campus. Their roommates had parking privileges there, but they had to park on the Main Lot. This would present difficulty when they would return from their hospital and clinical assignments. SGA asked, on their behalf, would the University be willing to allow the Nursing students access to the new parking garage. After taking it under advisement, they agreed to allow those students to use the new garage. Therefore, he feels there are more than enough avenues available without having to create an additional committee of the Senate. He thinks there are far more pressing issues for the Senate. Senator Valosky would vote against this recommendation.

Senator Gelwicks noted that Recommendation #3 is another committee, the Parking Appeals Committee. He believes that committee has already been created and is in agreement with Senator Valosky.

The Chair pointed out that the Parking Appeals Committee is a committee to deal with specific appeals of tickets. The committees in Recommendations # 2 and #4 are meant to be policy committees.

Senator Wall questioned why both functions could not be included on the one committee. Senator Valosky explained that Administration is responsible for policy. Therefore, if people want to discuss policy there are already enough avenues for those issues. He did state that the Administration is very supportive of the Parking Appeals Committee.

Senator Styer asked if the Parking Appeals Committee is basically busy with mostly the appeals. Chief Tadjeski admitted that was the case, however, in discussing appeals there are policy implications.

Senator Dellapenna admitted that he was somewhat confused about why there would be a separate committee for Recommendations #2 and #4. It was not clear to him why it could not be one committee to handle both sets of issues. He observed that the ad hoc Parking Committee has done an excellent job. If it is conclusive that there are issues that remain to be addressed then we should follow up and address them. He stated that this does not mean that we make the final decision, but we should not leave the job unfinished.

Senator Gelwicks noted that the student’s concern is working on policy issues with Public Safety. If parking for students is a policy issue, then SGA already has a committee in place to represent the students on that issue.

Professor Eckstein stressed that it is very important to have the Parking Appeals Committee be as removed from policy as much as possible. If it is going to be doing a somewhat judicial review, there needs to be a separation of powers of the judicial and the legislative.

The Chair called for a vote of Recommendation #2 which failed to pass.


• Senate endorse that the Parking Appeals Committee, starting in August 2009, be newly constituted. Selection will be conducted through normal governance channels such as Faculty Congress, University Staff Council and SGA.
(ad hoc committee - unanimous)

Chief Tadjeski explained originally, he felt that there was no need to change the Parking Appeals Committee. He stated that the committee in place was thoughtfully considering each appeal and was not unfair in their outcomes. On further consideration, however, he feels as though there is largely a perceptual issue and an issue of representation when it came to how that committee was constituted. He therefore believes it was appropriate to reconstitute the committee to include representatives from Staff Council, University Senate and SGA.

Senator Fitzpatrick noted that it is not reflected in the language of the proposal that any Administration is not on this committee. Senator Valosky stated that the Director of Public Safety and the Parking Office Manager are both on that committee.

Senator Valosky moved to reword the amendment, seconded by Senator Akoma, as follows:

US 0911-2-2: RESOLVED: “Senate endorse that the Parking Appeals Committee, starting in August 2009, be newly constituted. Selection will be conducted through normal governance channels such as Faculty Congress, University Staff Council, SGA and the Department of Public Safety”

A vote was taken on US 0911-2-1 with the following favorable result:

FAVOR 21               OPPOSED 11                ABSTAIN 4 + 1


• Senate endorse to form a new Faculty-Staff Parking Committee (ad hoc or standing), selected through governance channels, to review existing regulations and guidelines (e.g., PAC).
( ad hoc committee - not unanimous)

Senator Valosky opposes this recommendation in view of the fact that we have the Faculty Congress, Parking Committee and Staff Council. Senator Dellapenna countered that the Faculty Congress does not have a parking committee and that the present ad hoc parking committee left unfinished business that should be finished.

Senator Styer called for a vote on Recommendation #4

FAVOR 10                 OPPOSED 11                    ABSTAIN 7 + 1

Recommendation #4 failed to pass.


• Senate endorse Resolution to eliminate Faculty and Staff registration fees for two years to be reviewed in May, 2011.
(ad hoc committee - not unanimous) (moderate agreement)

Senator Stack asked why the students were not included in this resolution. Professor
Eckstein responded that the committee was considering those who were employed here different from those who are students.

Senator Valosky stated that the university did a survey whereby approximately ninety colleges and universities responded. He noted that the results seemed to depend on the size of enrollment. Those schools that have more than 5,000 students approximately 67 % charge a parking fee to faculty, staff and students. If that number increases to 7,500 students, including law and undergraduate students the percentage that charges a parking fee increases to 75%. If it moves to 10,000 students, which would be Villanova’s number of students, it remains at about 76%. They then decided to look at schools that had a similar profile to Villanova. They found that Boston College charges over $400.00 to both faculty and staff for their parking. Drexel charges $14.00 per day, Georgetown charges over $130.00 a month, LaSalle, Lehigh, Temple, University of Dayton, University of Pennsylvania and University of Richmond charged a fee as well. They realized that a parking fee was certainly included in the majority of schools that did charge a fee. He did agree with the earlier observation that in a time where we are attempting to be as prudent as possible, that if we were to do it for one we would do it for all. He, therefore, would not support this recommendation.

Senator Akoma wondered if it was fair to compare Villanova with schools like Temple, Penn and Drexel in regard to space. Senator Valosky replied that they could not see a pattern with any geographic area. He cited colleges such as Immaculata, Bryn Mawr and Haverford College are comparable. They based it on size of enrollment since they saw no difference in rural vs. suburban. However, they did see a clear split between size of the student body.

Professor Eckstein noted that even though the comparisons are helpful we will still get totally different results. He feels as though we must decide which of these variables is
really salient. He feels the most relevant point of comparison is the geography and how much space is available. He noted that Villanova is one of the few schools that charge its employees to park on campus.

Senator Danko asked if the committee considered raising fees as a disincentive for people to drive. This would encourage employees to take public transportation in the light of energy and environmental concerns. Professor Eckstein responded by saying that the committee had considered that. However, the constraints are such that it is unfair to put that infrastructure in place to encourage that. He admitted that people might like to have a mass transit option. He stated, however, it just does not exist in a very feasible fashion. He noted that in the urban schools those options are much more available, while at Villanova, those options are much more limited.

Senator Shai suggested that since this is a very complicated topic, there might be larger implications of the availability of more convenient parking.

Senator Shai motioned to table the meeting this until the next meeting. Senator Cassel seconded the motion.

Senator Styer asked for a vote on the motion to table the issue:

FAVOR 17                OPPOSED 18                ABSTAIN 1 + 1

The motion to table is not approved.

Professor Eckstein wanted to put the financial issue into perspective by saying that the $200,000 is a miniscule part of the Operating Budget of the university.

Senator Morejon stated that given Senator Valosky's emphasis on the importance of balancing the budget and maintaining financial responsibility, as well as attempting to decrease the financial stress on the students and their families as much as possible, it seems to him to be a backwards and irresponsible move to eliminate over $200,000 in school revenue in the form of the faculty and staff parking registration fees; for this reason he did not support Recommendation #5.

Senator Harmuth addressed the fact that perhaps $200,000 does not seem like a large amount, but that is four or five students that could be offered full tuition. She felt like this would be a miniscule amount of money for faculty and staff to pay.

Senator McWilliams commented that, with all due respect, for many of the staff that may not be such a miniscule amount of money. She added that since there was no raise last year, those in the Faculty Congress felt as though this would be a nice gesture on the part of the university. She also noted that this is not a request for a permanent change, but merely a request for a token on the part of the University during the time when there was no change in salaries for the staff and faculty. She felt as though it would be a way to acknowledge appreciation.

Senator Koury-Wunderlich commented that there is somewhat of a restriction to have it for just a limited time to see how it works. She does agree that there should be some effort on the part of the University because of the economic times and the restrictions that have been put on salary increases. She feels as though two years is not that much. She wondered if this $200,000, if saved, is directed specifically to student tuition.

Senator Gelwicks felt as though this discussion should not continue without the students’ input. He thinks that to not include the students, for all the same financial reasons does not make sense to him. He remarked that the students are paying for their education and parking as well. He then moved to amend the resolution to add the students to the resolution. Seconded by Senator Marrah.

The Chairperson read the proposed amendment to the main motion:

“Eliminate faculty, staff and student parking registration fees for two years”

FAVOR 10                    OPPOSED 14                        ABSTAIN 2 + 1

The motion to revise the wording was denied.

Senator Dellapenna, in reference to Senator Gelwicks statement, felt as though there is a valid basis for drawing the distinction that the committee drew. He would vote against the amendment.

Senator Johannes remarked that he has a general principle a problem with trying to legislate budgetary matters on the Senate floor. He feels as though it is easy to either add expenditures or reduce revenue. He thinks our obligation should be to balance that with some other responsible way of making up the revenue. His view would be, unless there is a very responsible alternative to make up the $200,000 revenue loss, this should not be up for discussion.

Professor Eckstein clarified the point of expenses vs. revenues which was discussed in May. He stated that depending on how it was calculated there would still be, even with this loss of revenue of $200,000 either a $328,000, $571,000, $551,000 or $500,000 surplus in the difference between revenues and expenses.

The Chair called for a vote on the original motion.

FAVOR 10                OPPOSED 24                            ABSTAIN 2 + 1

Recommendation #5 failed to pass.




There being no further business, a motion To Adjourn was made by the Senator Wall and seconded by Senator Akoma. Adjournment took place at 5:10 P.M. The next Senate meeting is to be held Friday, October 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM in Bartley Hall, Room 2001.

Respectfully submitted,

Bryan Kerns
Executive Secretary


BK: hh