The integrated planning resource management report went in front of Wilfrid Laurier Universityโs 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 โbeyond their mandate,โ 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 โdefer 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.โ
Laurier president Max Blouw said he was pleased with the quality of discussion by Senate.
โEveryone recognizes that there are different points of view, but those points of view were aired and Senators had very clear motions they voted on,โ he said. โThe support in general of the general direction of making choices is quite clear. So Iโm happy with that.โ
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 โtotal mess.โ He then finished by saying, โI am dismayed by my colleagues on the Senate going through with this sham today.โ
He explained after the meeting that he feels IPRM is an โattempt to move power toward the administration and away from the faculty.โ
โI 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,โ he said. โInstead, they bought it.โ
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.
โThe work of the board is to give direction to the administration, so weโll hear what that sounds like and determine what the next steps are at that point.โ
Eglin is not optimistic about the discussion that will come from the meeting.
โThere will be further dissent expressed at the board by the rebel, and the board will approve everything, Iโm sure, since of course now it has the endorsement of the Senate,โ he said.
We're at the Senate meeting where #IPRM will be the main focus. First 15 mins are in-camera. #WLU #Laurier
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Secret ballot will be done for voting of #IPRM.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Motion passes to implement with additional recommendations 46-16-4. #IPRM
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Michael Carroll reccomends Senate endorse recommendations, but exclude implementation recommendations. Says team went beyond mandate.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Jonathan Finn wants to propose a friendly amendment to the amended motion to not endorse the phase out of WLU Press.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
The motion is to endorse the recommendationd of APT report, with exclusion of all recommendations of implementation. #IPRM
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Motion carries: 47-17-1
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Concerns from Senators that there are provisions and safe guards to "important" things that may be recommended for phase out.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Motion (to remove WLU Press and gallery from report) is now in secret ballot.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
The motion dies because of the tie; the next motion is regarding the recommendation of the academic priorities team. #IPRM
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Motion passes to amend the motion: 51-14-0; amended motion will now be voted on. #IPRM
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Student asks what role students can have on the decisions being made in this report.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Peter Eglin says he wrote a nine-page report regarding #IPRM. Says the process is a "total mess."
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Eglin questions what the point in the process was if it could potentially go back down to the faculties. #IPRM
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Eglin: "I am dismayed by my colleagues on the Senate going through with this sham today."
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Motion carries: 44-20-0; final motion is to endorse recommendations of planning task force, excluding implementation teams.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Motion carries 46-17-0. That draws the discussion of IPRM to a close.
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Blouw says making choices is "absolutely essential, but boy is it hard."
— The Cord | News (@cordnews) January 12, 2015
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.