What began as a routine monthly meeting swiftly turned into a contentious showdown.
During the Arts and Science Faculty Board meeting on Oct. 25, faculty members voiced concerns to the proposed motion, “Faculty Board approve the changes in the Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) By-Laws.” Faculty members debated the proposed bylaw changes, as concerns over equity took centre stage, leaving many wondering whether the proposed revisions were equitable.
The motion followed recommendations from the Procedures Committee, chaired by Jonathan Rose, professor and head of the Department of Political Studies. Recently finalized, these recommendations aim to update the Faculty Board’s operational procedures, addressing meeting schedules, member roles, and structural changes to better align with current faculty need and terminology.
Among the proposed changes, the committee recommends Faculty Board meetings begin at 2:30 p.m. and be capped at two hours. Extending meetings beyond this limit would require two-thirds approval from members present, allowing for an additional 30 minutes, with meetings ending no later than 5:30 p.m. Rose stated this adjustment is made to better accommodate faculty members with family commitments, aiming to foster a more inclusive and considerate schedule.
One of the proposed changes attracting the most attention from faculty and students is the recommendation to shift to in-person attendance for Faculty Board meetings. Under the new guidelines, the Board would meet in person, with a streaming option provided for observers whenever possible.
When asked if voting rights would change under the new attendance policy, Rose clarified voting rights would remain unaffected for in-person attendees. However, it was later clarified members attending virtually would lose their voting privileges and participate as observers only.
President of the Society of Graduate & Professional Students (SGPS), Emils Matiss voiced concerns over the proposed in-person attendance requirement, questioning why hybrid options couldn’t continue given many governance meetings are held in this format. The committee responded, saying the Faculty Board lacks sufficient staffing and resources to ensure accuracy and transparency in hybrid voting.
SGPS Vice-President (Graduate) Zaid Kasim raised concerns about the equity and accessibility of requiring in-person attendance, noting it could disadvantage those with accessibility needs or health issues. While he recognized staffing constraints, Kasim suggested fully online meetings as a more inclusive alternative.
“If we’re going to choose one or the other thing, a fully online version would be preferred. At least in that case, folks who may not be able to attend in person can still engage in Faculty Board matters and can still have their voice heard. […] It’s not necessarily an operational issue, it’s one of equity,” Kasim told the Faculty Board.
In response to the suggestions and recommendations, Rose expressed his appreciation for the items brought forward. He claimed all the work from the committee is complete and asked the Faculty Board to have trust in the committee and the work they’ve done over the summer months.
“We were motivated almost entirely by making the process equitable. […] So it’s not up to the Board to re-deliberate what the committee has done. It’s entirely the Faculty Board’s purview, as it should be to accept or reject these recommendations,” Rose said in an interview with The Journal.
When a Board member suggested sending the motion back for further modification, it was clarified the committee responsible had disbanded after completing its work. The Faculty Board must now either reject the motion and revert to the old bylaws or accept the proposed changes as presented.
“We’ve done our work and presented it to the FacultyBoard. We’re done, so it’s up to the Board to make a recommendation on what we’ve done,” Rose said to the Faculty Board. “The procedures committee was created to make recommendations about the changes to the bylaws. We’ve done that. In my mind, we’re done. I’ve got a day job, so I don’t have time to do more work on this.”
The motion was postponed to the next Faculty Board meeting on Nov. 22, where faculty will discuss the proposed bylaw revisions and vote on approving changes to the Academic Program Regulation. where Board members will decide whether or not to reduce the number of requirements for FAS degrees.
Tags
bylaws, Faculty Board Meeting, FAS
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.