The Council on University Planning and Budget’s Jan. 18 bylaw-amending session has spawned controversy among faculty about whether the meeting violated parliamentary procedure and, or the council’s existing bylaws.

David Carpenter, English professor and member of both the CUPB and the Faculty Senate, said the bylaw changes made last month should be null and void because they modified amendments suggested at an informal meeting of the council held in September, not formal bylaws approved in May.

The bylaws the CUPB approved on May 18 state the council’s bylaws can be amended, “provided the amendment has been submitted in writing at a previous meeting.”

Carpenter said the proposed amendments were void because they suggested changes to the proposed bylaws discussed at the informal September meeting, not the official bylaws approved at the May 18 meeting.

At the Jan. 18 meeting, the CUPB approved a revised set of bylaws based on changes proposed in September. However, those revisions were approved only after CUPB Chair Hank Davis announced that each member could only speak once, and for two minutes at a time.

That motion was referred to as a “gag order” by both Carpenter and David Radavich, English professor and president of Eastern’s chapter of the University Professionals of Illinois, the university’s faculty union.

Carpenter said placing such a restriction on debate violates Robert’s Rules of Order, which dictate parliamentary procedure among governing bodies of the university.

The 2000 edition of Robert’s Rules of Order states, “The … motion to limit or extend limits of debate…requires a two-thirds vote – because it suspends the rules, and because limiting debate takes away the basic rights of all members to full discussion and may restrict a minority’s right to present its case.”

Davis said he operated within the framework of parliamentary procedure.

“My understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order is that any member at the meeting can object and say, ‘I disagree’ and put it to vote,” Davis said.

Both sides also do not agree on which set of bylaws the CUPB operated under before the revisions were adopted. At the Jan. 18 meeting, Davis told the CUPB that it was operating under bylaws revised in 1995, because those, which the council adopted in May 2001, were never approved by Eastern’s Board of Trustees.

Carpenter said it isn’t the practice of the BOT to approve the bylaws of any university council or committee, and that Davis himself either made or seconded all seven motions to approve the amended versions of the May bylaws.

“It was ridiculous for (Davis) to go back to the 1995 bylaws when the CUPB had revised his own bylaws in May 2001,” Carpenter said.

Days before the CUPB voted on its bylaws the Faculty Senate voted to recommend the bylaws be tabled until Eastern had a permanent president, expressing a concern that some revisions damaged the university’s system of shared governance. Those revisions were based on the bylaws suggested in September, but never approved, Carpenter said.

Radavich said concerns that the bylaws suggested in September restricted consultation between the faculty and the administration, combined with the bending of Robert’s Rules of Order, created cause for alarm.

“I’d have to say just the fact that parliamentary procedure was not followed made it more suspicious,” Radavich said. “If you have a new proposal that is a good one, then you’re not afraid of parliamentary procedure.”

Carpenter said on Jan. 23 he sent a memo to Davis informing him that the bylaw changes suggested in September, which were used for the basis of last month’s revisions, are null and void because the CUPB never approved them. He said he has yet to here back from Davis.

Carpenter said the CUPB now may need to consider a decision to formally censure or unseat Davis.

Radavich said he didn’t know what the faculty planned to do about the dispute.

“There’s something simmering under the surface,” he said.

Pat Guinane, associate news editor,

contributed to this story