‘There has been a general drift of a less activist Senate,” said Robert Van Gulick, a faculty member on the Budget Committee. “The process is less structured. Matters that the senate could address, they don’t or aren’t allowed to have a say in. They have less vigorous debate.”

While USen has the power to finalize decisions regarding curriculum, its role in all other decisions, such as the administration’s changes to employee benefits, is only advisory, according to its bylaws. But faculty is concerned that the structure of the monthly meetings and declining faculty activism hinder USen’s influence on important decisions at SU.

Eric Spina, vice chancellor and provost, disagrees and said he and other administrators continue to view USen meetings as constructive discussions that have a direct influence on decision-making.

Van Gulick, a professor of philosophy, pointed to the March 4 USen meeting as an example of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. The meeting was meant to discuss the budget for fiscal year 2011 and changes to the benefits proposal. But the meeting had to be cut short, resulting in little debate.

“In the past, you’d have it presented, and then people would meet on it. Then it was all very rushed this year,” Van Gulick said. “They should have ample time to think about these things.”

After various calls for more discussion about the budget presented at the March 4 meeting, the administration specifically dedicated two hours of Wednesday’s USen meeting to discuss concerns about the budget, which was approved by the board of trustees March 11.

Harvey Teres, faculty representative on the board of trustees, was present at the discussion Wednesday and said in an e-mail that he felt it was a “welcoming sight of thoughtful, committed members of the faculty exchanging views with competent, reflective members of the administration about matters that have rarely if ever been publicly discussed at SU.”

Van Gulick and other professors said the main structural problem with the regular USen meetings is that they are too short with too many presentations to accommodate thorough debate about important issues. While USen has 18 committees, which hold focused discussions separately, the senate does not have a venue to discuss issues at length as an entity.

Beyond a lack of time, Jeffrey Stonecash, a former member of the Budget Committee and a professor of political science, feels tension stemming from the administration about open dialogue and criticism at the meetings, which discourages some faculty from asking probing questions, he said.

Even when probing questions are presented for discussion to all members, faculty, administrators and students, administrators have the final word.

“I have never heard an administrator express anything other than the party line,” Stonecash said. “You get the impression that asking real questions is not OK.”

To combat the final word the administration often has on issues raised at senate meetings, Pat Cihon, a member of the Academic Affairs Committee, recommended having a neutral party chair lead the discussion instead of the chancellor. Open discussion at meetings would be conducted in a more appropriate manner if a non-involved person guided the conversation, he said.

But Cihon said the university is not necessarily supposed to function like a democracy, and there is a need for leadership that makes final decisions.

“Somebody has to be in charge,” said Cihon, a professor of management, law and policy studies. “Hopefully they’d listen and be interested.”

In addition to worries about meeting structure, faculty also expressed concerns about decreasing activism within USen.

Robert McClure, a political science professor, has been at SU for more than forty years. In that time, administrators of all sorts have always chaffed at faculty USen members and sometimes for good reason, he said.

“But that said, the discussion that took place in the USen 30 years ago was more elaborate, more thoughtful, was tolerated more graciously by university leadership than now,” McClure said.

McClure thought faculty apathy for extended discussion in USen was a change in the times, rather than this particular administration’s management of USen.

“In modern society, students find it difficult to pay attention to a lecture for 45 minutes, and the University Senate is the same,” McClure said. “It wishes not to deliberate and think, but hurl sound bites and then go home for dinner.”

McClure said the problem with rising apathy and less discussion is that power to make important decisions is left in the hands of the few.

The notion among faculty that USen is incapable of having an influence on major decisions is another possible reason why faculty activism is down, said Steven Diaz, a mathematics professor. Because faculty comes from a wide variety of backgrounds, members are often divided on issues to which the administration can form a united response. This dilemma, in addition to professors’ busy schedules and other priorities, makes activism seem futile, Diaz said.

Diaz said the faculty, whether through the senate or not, should be able to have long discussions about and criticize the administration’s decisions. One way to have an influence on these decisions would be to go directly to the Board of Trustees, which officiates all major university decisions, except curricular concerns reserved for USen, Diaz said.

To promote discussion among faculty and staff over the changes to benefits, Van Gulick proposed starting a blog during the ongoing discussion on employee benefits. While the blog never came to fruition, the creation of an ongoing blog devoted to senate discussion beyond meetings might make USen a more effective entity, he said.

“It’s the 21st century,” he said. “Let’s have a blog.”

While a blog runs the danger of getting personal or off topic, if properly monitored, it could keep members of the senate engaged and interested, Van Gulick said.

While McClure said a USen blog couldn’t hurt, it could not replace the face-to-face dialogue necessary in the senate as well as in an academic setting.

“Collegial discourse rounds the sharp edges of our differences and facilitates a more inclusive and warmer sense of community,” McClure said. “There’s something to be gained in a democratic setting from people having to answer questions, to respond in the moment, to engage in a give-and-take.”