Oakland University Senate

Fourth Meeting
December 5, 1974

MINUTES

Present: Senators Barron, Barthel, Bingham, D. Burdick, H. Burdick, Burke, Coffman, Covert, Evarts, Feeman, Gardiner, L. Gerulaitis, R. Gerulaitis, Hawn, Hetenyi, Hitchingham, Hovanesian, Keegan, Liboff, Light, McKay, McKinley, Moorhouse, Obear, Riley, Schwartz, Seeber, Shacklett, Strauss, Sturner, Torch, Tower and Wyatt
Absent: Senators Akers, Barnard, Beardman, Brieger, Coon, DeMent, Doane, Graber, Gray, Gregory, Haskell, Johnson, Krompart, Matthews, O'Dowd, O'Leary, Palmer, Paslay, Pfeil, Schillace, Schmidt, Susskind, and Tipler

In the absence of Mr. O'Dowd, Mr. Obear chaired the meeting. After the meeting was called to order Mr. Obear introduced Mr. John Shacklettt, representing the student constituency.   The minutes were approved as submitted with a single correction; in the list of absent senators, the name "'Hahn" should read "Hawn."

A. Old Business

I. Motions concerning amendments to the Senate Constitution.

a. The Matthews/Torch substitute motion was first considered, and was rejected by a voice vote. The original motion was then considered. Mr. Light, seconded by Mr. Hetenyi, moved:

THAT TWO SENATORS BE ELECTED FROM AMONG THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE SENATE BE INCREASED BY ONE MEMBER, TO THIRTY SENATORS.

The Light amendment carried on a voice vote.

Mr. Hetenyi, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, then moved to amend the main motion as follows:

THAT THE PROVISION CONCERNING DESIGNATED SEATS FOR DEANS BE DELETED AND THAT 22, RATHER THAN 19, SENATORS BE ELECTED BY THE ORGANIZED FACULTIES.

Mr. Hetenyi stated that he believed that either all deans should be guaranteed a seat on the Senate or alternatively that the deans should not be treated as a special group but rather stand for election from their faculties as would any other member of that faculty. The Hetenyi  motion carried on a show of hands, 13-12.

A number of procedural questions were then raised. They are treated in these minutes in the order in which they were ultimately resolved.

Mr. Seeber questioned whether, according to the provision of Article V, section viii of the Constitution of the Senate, a vote of 13 was sufficient to carry an amendment. Mr. Seeber interpreted the phrase ''of which quorum a majority vote shall suffice" to mean that a minimum vote of 15 (one vote more than half of a quorum of 29) is necessary for a motion to pass. The chair, upon the advice of parliamentarian Tower, ruled that the Hetenyi amendment had been properly passed with 13 votes. Mr. Seeber, seconded by Mr. Coffman, then appealed the ruling of the chair. That ruling was then sustained by the house on a voice vote.

Ms. Burdick, stating that she had voted in favor of the Hetenyi amendment, called for a reconsideration of the motion. Mr. Liboff seconded. The motion to reconsider then passed on a show of hands, 18 - 10.

The Hetenyi amendment was then revoted and on a show of hands failed, 11- 20 .

A third procedural question was briefly in issue, but was rendered moot by the actions described above. Mr. McKay wished to challenge the Hetenyi amendment as being beyond the range of considerations which should be properly placed before the Senate. His contention was that any changes to the constitutional amendments which had been presented in the agenda must lie substantively somewhere between the proposed amendment and the current constitutional provision on the issue. Otherwise, there is a procedural violation in that adequate prior notice is not given. A determination of this question was rendered unnecessary by the failure of the Hetenyi motion to pass.

The main motion, with the Light amendment, was then voted and failed on a voice vote.

b. The Matthews amendment was approved on a voice vote. The main motion as altered by the Matthews amendment was then approved on a voice vote.

The provision to be submitted to the faculty referendum thus reads as follows:

THAT THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE BE DELETED FROM ARTICLE V, SECTION iii:

For the election of 1967 only Senators shall be assigned as described in this article, except that full-time faculty of all ranks shall be the basis of assignment.

Mr. Feeman stated that he had found an internal contradiction in the sentence in Article V, section ii, reading: "Elective seats shall be assigned by the Elections Committee of the University Senate among the faculties in proportion to the number of members of organized faculties, with the proviso that no organized faculty shall be awarded more than forty-nine percent of the seats in the Senate ...." Mr. Light, current Elections Committee chairman, and Mr. Burdick, a former Elections Committee chairman, both stated that the language as written had provided no insurmountable obstacle to the work of the Elections Committee. However, the chair directed the Elections Committee to make a recommendation concerning the "forty-nine percent" provision in an effort to clarify the possible contradiction.

The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

Robert H. Bunger, Secretary
University Senate

RHB:ss
12.16.74