It was business as usual for the University Senate at Friday’s plenary monthly meeting, which included discussion of Columbia’s unsure economic situation and squabbling over the semantics of a resolution.
Following last month’s somewhat contentious yet well-attended meeting, Friday’s plenary was less eventful, but still displayed concern for the future of the University’s financial situation and the Senate’s role in it.
University President Lee Bollinger once again updated the senate on Columbia’s financial status in light of the economic crisis. He noted that the cuts will be made from the top down, starting from his office and the central administration, and continuing to individual schools, each of which manage their own budgets.
Currently, the administration is planning to work with limited resources for one to three years in order to keep an even keel, but Bollinger speculated that things could get worse. “I don’t want you to think that you should be waiting for the other financial shoe to drop,” he said, “However, we don’t know—it could get worse. If it does, you will be the first to hear from me.”
At the end of the meeting, there was discussion of a proposal made by the Faculty Affairs Committee to guarantee the participation of the University Senate in “any major impending decisions about budgetary priorities.”
Bollinger and Provost Alan Brinkley did not seem enthusiastic about the resolution, which stressed transparency. Brinkley said he supports the “spirit” of the resolution, but thinks that the wording is too vague. “Some information is confidential and is not appropriate to share with the senate,” he said.
The discussion was tabled until the next meeting without taking a vote.
Professor and executive committee co-chair Paul Duby once again brought up the executive committee’s duty to recommend names for six of the appointments of the University trustees. He called on senators to submit names so that the executive committee can draw up a short list to submit to the current trustees and Bollinger.
The only action taken at the meeting was unanimous approval of a resolution that extends the “tenure clock,” the amount of time a faculty member on the tenure track has before their tenure comes up for review, for faculty members who have a significant amount of clinical duties beyond their University responsibilities.
There was some contention surrounding the semantics of the resolution, but in the end the senate decided that the details and clarifying language could be tweaked after the resolution was passed. Afterward, faculty senator Michael Adler of the business school wondered why such seemingly trivial matters need to be considered by the Senate.
“I’m a little bemused that the Senate has been asked to consider such matters,” he said.
While Bollinger clarified that such measures were necessary because the senate’s approval is needed for any change to the statutes of the University, professor Letty Moss-Salentijn, the chair of the education committee who led the discussion on the resolution, alluded to Columbia’s long list of institutional traditions.
“They always have,” she said, “It’s the Columbia way.”
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy