Faculty voiced a chorus of complaints about transparency at the last University Senate meeting of the semester.

Discussion about transparency and faculty governance had surfaced at points throughout the semester, but it wasn’t until Wednesday’s meeting that it seemed to come to a head. Geography professor Mark Monmonier even suggested a vote of no confidence in Syracuse University’s budget — a motion that was later tabled.

In a somewhat rare moment, a few of the administrators that were present in Maxwell Auditorium offered a rebuttal to faculty claims of secrecy in decision-making and budget affairs. Chancellor Kent Syverud was not at the meeting, but other high-level administrators such as Director of Budget and Planning Gwenn Judge and Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost Liz Liddy were present.

Liddy gave an update on the Academic Strategic Plan, saying that the Oversight Committee will be issuing a report in two weeks.

The meeting dealt with a few leftover agenda items from the April 13 meeting, including a budget report and presentations from the Student Life Committee and the Committee on Research. At least an hour of the more than 90-minute meeting was spent voicing complaints about administrative transparency, some of which weren’t limited to the university’s budget.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Dawit Negussey recommended the university use money that isn’t earmarked for a specific purpose to fund the Academic Strategic Plan. Former Senate Agenda Committee Chair Bruce Carter questioned how this could be possible when it’s unclear how much the initiative will cost.

“We estimate that the cost of the strategic plan will be somewhere between zero and infinity,” Carter said. “We have no information about what the cost will be or what the priorities are.”

In what appeared to be a moment when Liddy and other administrators realized they should respond to the criticisms, Kevin Quinn, SU’s senior vice president for public affairs, moved across Maxwell Auditorium to sit next to Liddy, where they spoke quietly. Liddy then said that the administration is not at the point of talking about funding for the Academic Strategic Plan, but that she would share their concerns with Syverud.

On the point of priorities, Senators Craig Dudczak and Margaret Susan Thompson both questioned what the university considered most important and, in terms of finances, what the Senate Budget Committee’s role is. Thompson raised issues with the Campus Framework proposal for a University Place promenade.

“Do we have a role in suggesting that maybe these priorities are not what they ought to be?” Thompson said. “In other words, we’ll have this lovely promenade to a library that is ranked embarrassingly low. Why couldn’t these priorities be rearranged?”

For several years, SU Libraries has ranked No. 80 or lower on the Association of Research Libraries list of spending by university research libraries, according to the Budget Committee report. The list measures a university’s spending on library materials and library staff.

SU Libraries’ budget currently operates at a deficit in the money it spends on services such as public computers and copiers, security and supplies, according to the report. The committee suggested providing a 1 percent increase to the libraries’ budget to help balance it.

The conversation then quickly turned back to administrators not involving the University Senate in discussions about Fast Forward initiatives and budgetary concerns.

Carter and Thompson said it’s unclear whether Syverud and other administrators actually believe in shared governance, as many meetings with senators get rescheduled and important reports aren’t released until after the academic year is over.

“There are lots of appointments being made to committees and task forces that in many instances seem to have no real bearing on outcomes, at least tangible outcomes anyway,” Carter said. “… The chancellor has said repeatedly that he’s in favor of shared governance, but the proof is in the pudding. I don’t see that kind of shared governance happening at least with regard to the budget committee.”

Can Isik, chair of the Senate Agenda Committee, said the committee is currently in the process of bringing together committee chairs to discuss various issues, including transparency and shared governance.

But that did little to appease senators’ frustrations. As the meeting approached the top of the hour, senators continued to lob criticisms at the chancellor and other administrators.

When Monmonier suggested a vote of no confidence — described by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges as the “nuclear option” of responses to university leaders — it seemed that the senate had reached a breaking point. The moment was defused when Carter suggested waiting until the senate was at a quorum, or at full participation.

“The university has no respect for faculty governance,” Monmonier shouted. “What is going on here?”

Published on April 27, 2016 at 10:39 pm

Contact Annie: apalme05@syr.edu