‹header›
‹date/time›
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
‹footer›
‹#›
1.Last month the Ctr for Governmental Services conducted a survey to assess faculty opinions on a number of issues related to the University Senate.  The impetus for the survey was the Fisher Report, which raised a number of questions concerning the Senate.  The Senate Rules Committee is responsible for conducting periodic studies of the Senate and took the lead in developing this survey.  Thanks to the Provost for funds to conduct the survey.
2.Thanks also to the 466 faculty who took the time to respond.  Based on the broad governance group of faculty, numbering 1,863, this would represent a 25% response rate.
3.
3.A more restricted definition used to report faculty to the Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS) gives us 1,384 faculty, and a response rate of 34%.
Faculty from across campus participated.  The “other” category includes smaller units and units with fewer than 20 responses, including the library, nursing, architecture, AAES, ACES, “other”, and “no answer.”
The first two slides can be reviewed quickly.
Most respondents thought that the current 3 year terms of Senators was “about right”
(Hardly anyone thought it was too short.)
In response to the question “If Senate terms continue to be three years, should Senators be allowed to serve two consecutive terms?”,
Two-thirds said yes
We asked, “Do you believe changing from a University Senate to a Faculty Senate would be a positive development?”
Clearly there is no unanimity to be found in these results, and a reading of the 73 verbatim remarks suggests this is a subject that may require further discussion.
While 43% of all respondents supported the idea of an exclusively faculty senate, and 34% preferred the current Univ Senate model, these figures were reversed among respondents who had previously served on the Univ Senate. 
We next asked two questions relating to how good a job Senators do representing their home departments. 
We first asked whether Senators solicited input in advance of important votes, and roughly two-thirds said that they did.
We then asked if Senators reported back to their home departments to share the substance of discussions that take place here.
Over three-quarters of those who responded said that their Senators do so.
We next asked whether the Senate represents faculty interests as a whole or the interests of a small percentage of the faculty.
Here again the results are mixed, as just  under half of all respondents felt that the Senate represented the faculty as a whole.
Just over 30% of all respondents feeling only a small percentage of the faculty are represented. 
Those who had served as Senators were less likely to hold this view (about 25%).
Faculty who have been here 5 years or less were almost twice as likely to have answered “don’t know”
We next asked whether the officers of the Senate represent faculty interests taken as a whole or represent the interests of a small percentage of the faculty.
The pattern to the responses was much the same as for the Senate itself.
It is clear from reading the verbatim remarks that the remarks were not targeted at any one set of Senate officers or the Senate at any one point in time.  Many of us who have served receive both compliments and criticisms, reflecting real diversity of viewpoints on this campus. 
Finally, we asked if holding University Senate and University Faculty meetings earlier in the day would make a difference in whether the respondent would be more or less likely to attend.
Faculty who had been here 5 years or less were somewhat more likely to attend (25%) than the average of 20%, and a slightly higher proportion of those who have been here 5-10 years answered likewise. 
As with most of these questions, the verbatim remarks are of equal interest as this is where many faculty took the time to elaborate on their answers