Behrend Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes for Faculty Senate

  1. Call to Order - Jason Bennett, Faculty Senate Chair
  2. Approval of Minutes
    1. Motion M. Naber and seconded M. Ciszek.
  3. Purpose and Context of Meeting (Jason Bennett)
    1. Discussion centered on issues with University Senate and campus senates regarding the budget.
    2. Concerns addressed:
      1. Implementation of the budget.
      2. Handling of the VSIP.
      3. Shifts in contract terms (e.g., moving contracts to one-year terms).
    3. Leaks regarding a no-confidence vote possibility; clarification that two unidentified senators leaked a document.
    4. Emphasis on ensuring that faculty opinions are clearly communicated for representation in Senate decisions.
  4. University Senate Developments (Matt Swinarski, Tracy Halmi)
    1. Discussion of the leaked document aimed at voicing concerns and raising the idea of a no-confidence vote in the president.
    2. Uncertainty about whether a motion for a vote of no confidence will be formally introduced.
    3. Plans for further discussions:
      1. An ongoing analysis of the issues.
      2. Next Senate meeting scheduled for further dialogue.
    4. Need for faculty to review and provide input on these matters for their senators.
  5. Budget Issues Impacting Campuses (Jason Bennett)
    1. University leadership criticized for:
      1. Failing to consult unit leaders when implementing the budget.
      2. Using a budget model that does not account for differences in enrollment ratios (in-state vs. out-of-state) and legislator money.
      3. Timing discrepancies: University Park units are notified in January; Commonwealth campuses (like Behrend) are informed much later (November).
    2. Impact on Behrend campus:
      1. Only campus among five standalone campuses with both increased enrollment and a significant budget decrease (6.6% decrease for FY26).
      2. Resulted in higher non-renewals of NTL faculty compared to other campuses.
    3. Disparities in subvention awards:
      1. Inconsistent and inequitable distribution.
      2. Some University Park units enjoy permanent subventions while Commonwealth campuses do not.
    4. Operating cost (termed “operating tax”) shared among Commonwealth campuses adds to the burden on Behrend.
  6. Related Developments and Comparisons Across Campuses (Jason Bennett)
    1. Other campuses:
      1. Some campuses have already voted or consider voting no confidence in the University.
      2. Variation in responses shows differences in morale and fear of retribution.
      3. Examples include:
        1. Greater Allegheny’s unit voted 24 to 2 for no confidence.
        2. Some campuses (e.g., Harrisburg, Berks) have either not responded or are delaying their vote.
    2. Additional issues:
      1. Discussion regarding whether non-renewable positions and adjunct cuts have been carried out disproportionately.
      2. Concerns related to the future financial sustainability and potential campus closures.
      3. Comparison of the treatment of Commonwealth vs. University Park campuses, with a feeling of being treated as second-class citizens.
  7. Analysis on Communication and Transparency
    1. Criticism of University administration for:
      1. Lack of timely and transparent communication regarding budget logistics.
      2. The administration’s rushed implementation of decisions without sufficient analysis or stakeholder involvement.
    2. Comments on the budgeting process:
      1. Complexity and lack of accessible data/formulas for analysis.
      2. Some faculty feel the process prevents strategic planning, forcing reactionary measures.
    3. Reference to broader issues:
      1. Ethical concerns regarding how administration handles faculty consultation and resource allocation.
      2. Notable criticism regarding the budget model’s inherent inequities and its potential long-term negative impact on the institution.
    4. Mention of Board of Trustees issues:
      1. Two lawsuits involving trustees and concerns about financial transparency.
      2. Discussion on whether the board should also receive the vote of no confidence.
  8. Discussion on Potential Actions and Vote of No Confidence
    1. Faculty deliberation on whether to proceed with a vote of no confidence against the University administration (and possibly involving the Board of Trustees).
    2. Motion for Vote of No Confidence made.
    3. Different perspectives presented:
      1. Some see the vote as a strong message to demand accountability.
      2. Others caution that previous votes of no confidence (e.g., related to COVID plans) did not lead to any changes.
    4. Proposed alternatives:
      1. Establishment of an independent committee to investigate alternative budget models.
      2. Preparation of a formal statement/letter outlining the issues and recommendations.
    5. Procedural aspects:
      1. The vote would be forwarded to the University Faculty Senate and the Office of the President.
      2. Discussion about how long to delay the vote (with a proposal to postpone for two weeks via an electronic vote using Qualtrics).
      3. Reminders about ensuring all faculty have an opportunity to digest and comment on the proposed statement before the eventual vote.
  9. Procedural Decisions and Next Steps (Jason Bennett)
    1. Decision to postpone the vote until the prepared statement can be fully circulated and discussed on Canvas.
      1. A motion was made and seconded to postpone the vote.
      2. A Qualtrics survey will be opened to record electronic votes and comments.
    2. Timeline:
      1. Document will be posted on Canvas.
      2. A vote will be scheduled (possibly Friday afternoon) to capture faculty input.
    3. Communication strategy:
      1. The process will remain internal until the Senate makes an official decision to avoid premature public disclosure.
      2. Final document will include the Board of Trustees, where applicable, ensuring comprehensive scope in the vote of no confidence.
  10. Concluding Administrative Issues
    1. Ongoing concerns about:
      1. The rushed decision-making environment.
      2. Forced acceptance of an inequitable budget model with no apparent long-term plan.
    2. Faculty sentiment:
      1. Deep dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of budget decisions.
      2. Anxiety over potential cuts, campus closures, and the loss of valued personnel.
    3. Emphasis on the need for robust shared governance and clearer, more transparent decision-making processes.
  11. Adjournment
    1. Motioned M. Naber, Seconded M. Ciszek