The faculty senate voted to extend the nomination period for all 23 positions available in the upcoming elections as seven remain without candidates and only five are contested as of Tuesday’s meeting.

The nomination period was extended to 4 p.m. Thursday. The senate encourages faculty to run for open spots.

The discussion of the establishment of bylaws that would guide members in handling referendum positions was tabled until the next meeting on March 23.

Members of the faculty senate have expressed a need for establishing such bylaws in light of a petition for a vote of no confidence against Blair Lord, provost and vice president for academic affairs, which faculty have been circulating.

During the meeting, Joy Russell, an assistant special education professor, said she was uncomfortable with voting on approving any bylaws, having not had enough time to review the information.

“A lot of the senate members are missing, and we have not had the chance to really consider that,” Russell said.

Fellow members Andrew White and Amy Rosenstein, who each requested more time to examine the material prior to voting, echoed her concerns.

David Viertel, an assistant professor of geology/geography, wondered if now is the appropriate time to be rewriting the rules while an active petition is being circulated.

“Granted, there may not be an appropriate way of dealing with it, but what does that look like to the rest of the university, when knowing that a petition is going on, we change the rules about verifying the petition?” Viertel said. “Does that look like we’re being favorable to one side or the other?”

Dawn VanGunten, associate professor in secondary education, countered that the rules, as they stand, are so ambiguous that the faculty senate could ultimately do anything it wants.

“That’s not a good thing for anybody,” VanGunten said. “I think we’re better off having a broader conversation, not just with us, but with the faculty as a whole about how we want these issues to be taken care of to preserve the process as well.”

Faculty senate recorder Jonathan Coit, an assistant history professor, spoke the importance of explicitly framing bylaws to prevent discouraging any future petitions from being submitted regarding any concerns the faculty may have.

As for the petition for a vote of no confidence, Coit said that signature verification would likely be required in judging its validity if ultimately brought before the faculty senate.

This process includes identifying whether or not a signature represents an actual faculty member, as well as ensuring that those whose names appear on the petition reflect those who actually signed themselves.

“We could consider verifying every single signature, but that presents some real practical difficulties in this time frame,” Coit said.

Faculty senate’s areas of improvement

The faculty senate also heard two presentations, including a tutorial of the budget dashboard in development by the business affairs office.

The other focused on the Landscape Master Plan presented by John Jackson, a representative from RATIO, an architecture firm.

Jackson highlighted key areas of improvement across the campus in planting native vegetation to reduce lawn space that requires maintenance in the effort to promote sustainability.

He emphasized landscaping as an integral tool for attracting students to campus, as he said 62 percent of high school students base their college selection on the appearance of its buildings and grounds.

He said the physical features of a campus could either promote or hinder what he called an “experiential economy,” in which people are willing to pay more for an intended experience, like the atmosphere found in a local Starbucks.

Other areas of improvement include repairing pavement, stairways and entries.

Erica Whelan can be reached at 581-7942 or [email protected].