If faculty members perceive that a serious problem exists on campus, they can petition the faculty senate to hold a referendum through Article XIII of the senate’s constitution.

Article XIII requires the senate to hold a referendum when 20 percent of those eligible to vote in senate elections – Unit A faculty and department chairs – petition the senate for a vote on any topic not covered by collective bargaining.

If the no confidence petition circulating against Blair Lord, provost and vice president for academic affairs, is brought before the senate with the approximately 93 required signatures, it will be put to a facultywide vote because of Article XIII.

The results of a referendum do not ultimately dictate what the administration will do, but they do wield heavy influence.

“It’s awfully hard for an administration to go through with a plan that a wide majority of Unit A faculty members and chairs don’t want. They can, but it’s not a smart thing to do,” said English professor John Allison.

Article XIII comes about in 1995

Lankford Walker, a long-time senate member and professor of accountancy and finance, petitioned the senate to pass the article to allow for a confidence vote against then-President David Jorns.

The vote was largely based on Jorns’ strategic plan. Strategic planning is a deceptive management style, said David Carpenter, an English professor and senate member at the time.

“It’s a shell game that tries to make faculty feel like they have an input, but it’s just a game,” he said.

A slight majority of senate members did not want to a hold a referendum, Allison said. Allison was the senate chair at the time.

“The primary reason, first, was that members of the faculty senate, and quite a few faculty members – as voiced in communications to the senate and in other ways – wanted the senate to offer a referendum vote on Jorns’ strategic plan,” Allison said. “Three senators got together and voted confidence with no intent to let the rest of the faculty weigh in.”

The petition included the Article XIII wording and accused the senate of ignoring Article III, “Communication Responsibility,” of the senate’s constitution.

Article III says the “faculty senate shall serve as an ombudsman in consideration of major academic or administrative planning proposals to promote open communication and assure that all parties which are properly concerned are consulted.”

A confidence vote on Jorns in 1996 was the first use of the new article. He survived the vote with approximately a 20 percent margin.

“It brought forth the issues, but fair is fair,” Allison said. “What the people who drew up the referendum (establishing Article XIII) wanted to advocate was ‘Look, we can’t have a group of senators decide just to come together, call an emergency meeting and declare everything fine without letting the rest of the faculty weigh in on something as important as a confidence vote.'”

Allison said the issue Walker was pushing was fair representation for faculty, not Jorns’ presidency. He described Walker, who died in 1999, as “a real champion of faculty representation.” Walker proposed the article in response to what he perceived to be an injustice by the senate.

“It’s a really good example of how a grassroots effort can take place when a group is no longer sufficiently responsive to the group it represents,” Allison said.

Senate sets no confidence precedent in 1991

Before Article XIII, a precedent for the senate holding referendums was set during the 1991-92 school year. That year, charges of nepotism and poor personnel handling were brought against then-President Stan Rives and Verna Armstrong, then-vice president for business affairs.

“They voted no confidence on the senate, then let the rest of the people eligible to vote in faculty senate elections weigh in,” Allison said. “Even if only the senate had voted, at the time, that would have been enough.”

Carpenter was chair of the senate at the time. The staff senate had not been formed at the time, and the faculty senate represented a larger portion of the campus. The campus resoundingly voted against Rives and Armstrong on the basis of illegal hirings and a mishandled personnel issue involving husband and wife Steve and Janet Larabie.

“Rives thought, if he got rid of Armstrong, the pressure would die off,” Carpenter said. “She left the position just after the vote was held, but he announced it just before the vote.”

It was shown through investigations that the pair had participated in cronyism, which is showing partiality to friends, particularly in appointing them to positions of authority, and nepotism, which is regard shown to family without any consideration to merit or skills.

“Verna Armstrong had hired relatives,” Carpenter said. “It was proven nepotism.”

Rives announced his resignation on Dec. 30, 1991.

Sarah Ruholl can be reached at 581-7942 or [email protected].