Senate Bill 15-16-22
| Bill ID: | 15-16-22 |
| Name: | Structural Improvement to Single Member Constituencies |
| Proposed: | 01/21/2016 |
| Sponsor: | Chuck Englehart, Part-Time Graduate Student |
| Proposal: | Single member constituencies are created where there is not necessarily a large enough contingent for representation in The Plan, but the contingency does not have a voice elsewhere. They are allowed for in The Plan, and added via The Bylaws. Currently single member constituencies remain single member constituencies until there is another Plan Review. This currently takes at least seven years and can take up to ten years. I would like to see an explicit process for moving Constituencies from the Single Member designation in The Bylaws to having a place in The Plan. This will allow for fluctuations in population to be accounted for more frequently than every seven to ten years. An amendment would be made in the bylaws. It would require that when adding a single member constituency, a pathway for that constituency to be added to The Plan is devised. Alternatively, a single member constituency could be noted as a non population constituency. The following paragraph is not necessarily correct but it reflects discussions with Senate members. An example of the non-population constituency would be the Part-Time Graduate Students. There are 10 at large Graduate Student Senators as noted in The Plan. The number of Graduate Students reflects all Full-Time and Part-Time. Therefore the Part-Time Graduate Student Senator is a non-population constituency. This would be reflected in The Bylaws as follows: 2.2.g.a "This constituency is reflected as a non-population constituency. Due to the Graduate School classifying every Graduate Student as Full-Time, their presence is accounted for in the at large Graduate Student Senators reflected in Section 3.4.b of The Plan. Therefore their apportionment is set to be static." In contrast we will consider Section 2.2.d of The Bylaws. This section allows for "Post-Doctoral Associates (formerly Research Associates), Junior Lecturers, and Faculty Assistants (formerly Faculty Research Assistants)". This amendment would require a subsection 2.2.d.a which reflects when each of these three groups would be reflected in The Plan. E.g., "When any of the three memberships reflected above reaches 75 members, that membership shall be removed from this section and their representation will be established through The Plan. When it is established in The Plan, it will be established as follows: 'One Post-Doctoral Associates Senator shall be elected for each 50 Post-Doctoral Associate constituents or major fraction thereof (26 or more). The candidates receiving the highest number of votes as determined by procedures established by the appropriate Senate committee shall be declared elected. ' " Of note is that the number 50 is purely theoretical and used instead of a variable to allow for more sensible verse. Also, it will need to reach 75 members which is one count and one major fraction. At that time the representation would need to be two instead of one. ? Is there evidence of campus support for this proposal? ? There have been multiple Single Member Constituency Senators interested in defining how to grow as their constituency grows. ? Who would be affected (both positively and negatively) if your proposal was put into action? ? This action would require more work to add a single member constituency. However, this work will be done once when adding a constituency instead of potentially multiple times during future reviews of The Plan. ? The positive is that there will be a clear cut transition for single member constituencies. ? Single Member constituencies will no longer wait 7 to 10 years for a review. ? Are there any financial consequences that would result from this proposal? ? No. |
| Active? | No |
Status
| Status: | Completed |
| Completed On: | 02/19/2016 |
History
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Chuck Englehart |
| Received: | 2016-02-23 |
| Decision: | The SEC voted to send a response to the proposer. |
| Related Files: |
| Status: | Complete |
| Reviewer: | Senate Executive Committee (SEC) |
| Received: | 2016-02-12 |
| Decision Date: | 2016-02-19 |
| Decision: | The SEC voted to commit this proposal to the Senate Office to hold for the next PORC review. |
| Actions: | The SEC discussed this proposal at its 2/19/16 Senate meeting. The SEC agreed any process for moving single member constituency groups should be defined in the Plan of Organization for Shared Governance and not the Senate Bylaws. The SEC voted to commit the proposal to the Senate Office to hold for the next PORC review. |
| Next Step: | Senate Office will hold for next PORC review. |
| Related Files: |