4/19/'10

	Motion on approval of committee actions and proposals

	The following is based on my notes of what was more-or-less
agreed to at a previous faculty meeting and will serve as a basis
for a formal motion at the next meeting.  I am still not entirely
happy with the wording and, in particular, would like to have 
(a) some more definitive characterization of those committee actions 
which are to be viewed as `pre-approved' (i.e., part of a committee's 
general authorization for normal functioning),
(b) some procedure for an objection if it is felt that a committee
action has been misclassified -- either as `pre-approved' or as
`noncontroversial',
(c) discussion of when the `negative option' (approval if, within a 
limited time after e-mail presentation, there have not been objections) 
might be used when there is time pressure.

Moved:

1.  We will distinguish between the `standing' committees and such
`ad hoc' committees as will be established.  [The standing committees
will be enumerated in the departmental bylaws along with their 
authorized normal functions; ad hoc committees (including hiring and
elections committees, but not P&T committees) will be established by 
regular procedures noting in advance which recommendations require 
further approval.]

2.  If any committee is discussing possibly controversial topics, 
then the faculty should be informed and opportunity given for an open
discussion (e.g., at a `Town Hall' meeting) before any recommendation
is presented at a Faculty Meeting for approval.

3.  Committee recommendations requiring approval shall be provided by
e-mail a week before the authorization (e.g., as part of the agenda
for that meeting) with a brief statement of the rationale for the 
recommendation if that is deemed desirable.  Such motions for approval 
require no second and, in the absence of objections, require no further 
discussion before a vote.