Report proceeds despite divided opinions at Senate

Photo by Heather Davidson

Photo by Heather Davidson

The integrated planning resource management report went in front of Wilfrid Laurier University’s Senate Monday, with four of five motions passed.

The four motions were to endorse the resource management report, the administrative priorities report, the academic priorities report and the planning task force report.

Dean of arts Michael Carroll moved to amend all motions to exclude recommendations concerning implementation teams.

The exclusion was due to the fact that the task force team went “beyond their mandate,” according to Carroll.

Following these amendments, the motions were passed by Senate.

The only motion that failed was brought forward by Markus Poetzsch, associate professor in the English department, which asked the Senate to “defer the acceptance of implementation of the recommendation by the administrative priorities team until such time as the data provided by all administrative programs can be verified.”

Laurier president Max Blouw said he was pleased with the quality of discussion by Senate.

“Everyone recognizes that there are different points of view, but those points of view were aired and Senators had very clear motions they voted on,” he said. “The support in general of the general direction of making choices is quite clear. So I’m happy with that.”

All motions had hefty discussion, with Senators split on opinions regarding the report and its necessity in the university prioritizing process. No motion passed unanimously.

Discussion for the motion regarding endorsement of the academic priorities team report became heated, with students in the gallery questioning what role they can have on decisions being made in the report. Professor of sociology Peter Eglin stood up to explain his position.

Eglin, who said he wrote a nine-page report regarding the IPRM process, said the entire process was a “total mess.” He then finished by saying, “I am dismayed by my colleagues on the Senate going through with this sham today.”

He explained after the meeting that he feels IPRM is an “attempt to move power toward the administration and away from the faculty.”

“I vainly and foolishly thought that if it ever did come to the Senate, that Senators, being a majority of one faculty, would have rebelled against this administrative ploy that IPRM is,” he said. “Instead, they bought it.”

The report has not been voted on in terms of implementation. Rather, Senate voted to endorse the report when it reaches the board of governors. The board will have an emergency meeting on Feb. 2 like Senate did on Dec. 17. This will be when the board can review the documents, comments and have their own discussion, according to Blouw.

“The work of the board is to give direction to the administration, so we’ll hear what that sounds like and determine what the next steps are at that point.”

Eglin is not optimistic about the discussion that will come from the meeting.

“There will be further dissent expressed at the board by the rebel, and the board will approve everything, I’m sure, since of course now it has the endorsement of the Senate,” he said.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply