By Justin Muszynski
After the recent matter of “transparency” in the Athletics Department was supported in the Faculty Senate and found to be an unpopular topic in the University Planning and Budget Committee. It must be explored as to whether or not there’s an issue in the difference in views between the two committees.
Guy Crundwell, a member of the UPBC, says this is a perfect example of why the committee isn’t doing what it was designed to.
“It’s supposed to represent the voice of the faculty in an advisory capacity related to planning and budget but the problem is with the way the UPBC is set up, with an equal amount of administrators and faculty. Those administrators are supposed to be there as resources but not to be voting members,” said Crundwell.
David Blitz, the former chair of the UPBC, recalls the process by which administrators gained voting privileges, and says it was more of a “courtesy” to them. If they were going to be present at the meetings, they might as well play a larger role.
At a UPBC meeting last semester, Crundwell put forth five motions relating to the Athletic Department’s finances and possible solutions that involved an ad-hoc committee assessing their budget and finding cost cutting measure that could be taken. However, only one of the five motions was passed after Crundwell took the other four off the table because of the obvious negative feelings the committee had towards them.
But when the Faculty Senate got wind of this issue they seemed rather intrigued by it; So much so that they invited Crundwell, Paul Schlickmann, the Athletics Director, and another member of the UPBC to a future meeting where they will conduct a more in depth discussion.
“I wasn’t there for the discussion, but I don’t understand why they didn’t approve that, especially if it seemed to be a matter of interest to at least some of the committee,” said Blitz referring to the UPBC. “Why the UPBC wouldn’t want to do that is a mystery to me, I don’t quite understand it because it’s just information. One part of the UPBC is to make the budgeting and planning process public and transparent.”
Crundwell also says that some administrators have multiple avenues to get their priorities to the forefront.
“I look at them crafting the voice of the faculty as two bites at the apple, because they get it before the senate votes on it and then they can bend the ear of the president individually, I can’t,” said Crundwell. “I have to put something through the shared governance route, through the faculty. The provost can put it through the faculty or give it to the president.”
Jason Jones, President of the CCSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors, says it’s a bigger question involving ethics when looking at the UPBC’s arrangement compared to that of the Senate’s.
“In general there’s a principle that the Senate committees should be faculty committees and the people who propose the budget should not then have the opportunity to vote on whether the budget is acceptable to the faculty,” said Jones.
Jones also says that the administrators’ presence can have an impact on whether or not members will speak out against something that they are in favor of.
“I do believe that it constrains the speech of some senators and of some members of the committee, I don’t think there’s any question about that,” said Jones. “There are even members of the Senate who don’t feel comfortable taking stances that strongly contradict those of their dean or the provost.”
He adds that members of the AAUP have language written in their contract about academic freedom and some still feel “anxious” about opposing the beliefs of the administrators. But he imagines it must be even more complicated for State University Organization of Administrative Faculty who doesn’t have the luxury of academic freedom.
“They’re in a tenuous situation, if the provost wants something passed and they’re relying on them for an evaluation it gets kind of sticky,” said Crundwell. “It’s a weird committee. I’m not saying it’s happening but there is potential for a conflict of interest.”