Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

September 17, 2009

Senate pushes for more involvement, communication

pinsky

Michael Pinsky

The times, they are a-changin’.

University Senate President Michael Pinsky told the fall term’s first Faculty Assembly he was instituting a 30-minute pre-meeting closed session with Senate officers for any faculty who wish to raise concerns confidentially. Other changes: Meetings now will include reports from at least two of the 15 Senate standing committees and there will be an optional post-meeting get-together of Assembly members at the University Club.

Pinsky also has formed a new working group — dubbed the Faculty Assembly outreach program — which is charged with facilitating and increasing faculty awareness and involvement in Senate matters University-wide. Wesley Rohrer, co-chair of the Senate’s community relations committee, will head the outreach program.

Among the program’s priorities, Pinsky said, will be countering a lack of knowledge about the role and responsibilities of the University Senate and Faculty Assembly as representative bodies in Pitt’s shared governance system.

Wesley Roher

Wesley Roher

Rohrer is charged with supporting Assembly members’ efforts to represent their colleagues via a two-way dialogue, where faculty bring concerns to their reps and where reps bring Assembly actions and proposals back to their constituents.

Pinsky called for such faculty meetings at the unit level at least once a term. If Assembly members have difficulty securing time for discussion at the departmental level, they should contact him, he added.

Pinsky decried the lack of participation during the spring elections for faculty representatives, which fell below 15 percent of eligible voters. “That is not an overwhelming mandate for me [as president],” he said. “I think there is a lack of awareness of the Senate and I think it’s cultural. That needs to change. Faculty are a university’s greatest asset. For one thing, we need more [electronic] notification on the elections than just two times a year.”

Asked for comment, Provost James V. Maher, who did not attend the Sept. 8 meeting, told the University Times, “We’ll look forward to discussing this with the Senate leadership, just as we have discussed this with previous Senate leaders.”

Pinsky said he will petition the administration for permission to send more email messages to the faculty at large, a move endorsed by several Assembly members. Currently, large-scale electronic messages are limited by the Provost’s office.

Pinsky also will request that the link to the University Senate web site appear on Pitt’s home web page. Currently, users first must go to the Faculty/Staff link.

Susan Hansen, Senate vice president, said she has examined similar faculty bodies’ web sites. “Frankly, our web site stinks [by comparison]. There are good models out there,” including one at Penn State, Hansen said.

“Right now we have creaky communications,” which include a once a term electronic Senate newsletter, she said. “There is the Senate Matters column [in the University Times] and we can write letters to the editor of the University Times, but we need more and better ways of communicating.”

Rohrer, in his report at the Sept. 8 Assembly, drew on a PowerPoint presentation titled “Orientation to the Senate” prepared by John Baker, the Senate’s immediate past president. The presentation is posted on the Senate’s web site at www.pitt.edu/univsenate/An%20Orientation%20to%20the%20Senate.pdf.

In addition to improving communication channels among faculty and promoting better attendance at the twice-annual Senate plenary sessions, Assembly members need to be more accountable by being more proactive in their service commitment, Rohrer said. “It’s my personal belief that every faculty member must participate in service, either external or internal, as part of our mission. One form of service is in [University] governance.”

*

The announcement of the new meeting structure and recommendations for increasing communication prompted much discussion at the Sept. 8 meeting.

Carey Balaban opined that the lack of interest in shared governance among faculty is a symptom of a cultural shift in academia from a community of scholars, which he called the old-fashioned model, into a self-preoccupation model, where faculty become absorbed in their own research and career advancement.

“People need to know that service [on Faculty Assembly] is worthwhile,” Balaban said. “Having more gatherings at the school level is a good place to start, but really we need communication across schools, too.”

Other members suggested that lack of interest in Assembly’s affairs is a function of the lack of results. Members said that concerns are raised, proposals are suggested, resolutions are passed, but then often nothing happens.

Assembly members agreed that proposals and resolutions should be tracked formally, so that their status can be checked online and inquirers will know whom to contact about progress. Pinsky and Senate secretary Lisa Bernardo said they would pursue that suggestion.

Tom Smitherman said the Senate needs an interactive, blog-like web site, “so we can have a news service with both up-to-date and archived information and so we can have an ongoing dialogue, with commentary. The logistics of face-to-face meetings are often difficult, but a web site can be checked [at an individual’s convenience]. If this is feasible, the administration should let us do it.”

Michael Spring suggested that, with change in the air, the role of Faculty Assembly itself should be re-evaluated. Stressing that his suggestions were descriptive and not meant as criticism, Spring called for clearer lines of demarcation about shared governance roles, which he said seem to evolve without formal notification.

He recalled his days on the Senate’s plant utilization and planning committee. “When I was on PUP years ago, it was the Senate that wrote the master [facilities] plan. Now the Provost’s office writes it,” Spring said. “Maybe our role has become more consultative [rather than policy-making].”

Similarly, Pitt has three committees evaluating its budget: the trustees budget committee, the Provost-chaired University planning and budgeting committee and the Senate’s budget policies committee, which cause roles to become blurred, he said.

“Consider the Internet. When [the administration] says no to more direct communication from the Senate to faculty, if we as a group are important, then we don’t take no for an answer,” Spring said.

Pat Weiss agreed that younger faculty in particular were more accustomed to Internet-based communication and such communication would increase faculty participation.

Beverly Gaddy said, “I applaud the idea of having more stuff on the web, and I do see [Faculty Assembly] as a meaningful body. But we need concrete results, not just more information.”

Balaban responded that results have been achieved in the form of new policies.

However, Smitherman said that the time lag between raising issues and creating policies often is excessive.

Baker noted that Senate bylaws specify that the administration consult with Senate committees and leaders. “The bylaws give us the right to [provide input]. And we are being consulted. But that consultation is often confidential.”

Weiss added a caution to the membership. “A university is not a representative democracy. Government ‘sunshine’ is not practical,” she said.

*

The Senate’s fall plenary session, “Interacting With the 21st-Century Student,” is set for noon-3 p.m. Oct. 21 in the William Pitt Union Assembly Room. Lunch will be provided.

—Peter Hart

Filed under: Feature,Volume 42 Issue 2

Leave a Reply