Faculty Governance

governance-structure

FACULTY GOVERNANCE MODEL

The committee tasked with researching models of governance and proposing a new University faculty governance system for the University of Mary Washington has, over the course of a year, conducted extensive research, hosted a conference at UMW on the topic of faculty governance, and conducted a survey and open forums throughout the University community. On the basis of our research and interactions with UMW faculty and stakeholders, we propose that the faculty adopt the following model for University governance, whose purpose is:

a. to ensure the academic integrity, academic excellence, and academic quality of the University of Mary Washington;
b. to enhance accountability for the academic integrity, excellence, and quality of the institution through the mechanism of faculty self-governance;
c. to ensure that the university adheres to the principles of academic freedom and preserves the mechanisms which foster and sustain it;
d. to develop policies and procedures that enhance the institution’s quality of faculty, academic programs, curricula, and campus life;
e. to provide a means by which the faculty can speak with a unified voice about the direction and missions of the institution at large; and
f. to enhance communication at all levels and in all departments of the university system.

If the faculty is accountable for creating a university marked by such characteristics, then we felt that faculty governance must focus on two areas; involvement and communication. Concerning faculty involvement, we would quote the American Association of University Professors in a discussion of sound governance:

“In general, the faculty should have a meaningful role in decision-making in those

areas that have a significant impact on the educational and scholarly enterprise. The

faculty should share with the governing board the responsibility of selecting the

institution’s president, and should significantly influence the hiring of other academic

administrators. Budgeting, strategic planning, facilities planning, and regulating

intramural athletics are only a few of the other functions that require significant

participation by the faculty, according to the Redbook. In addition, the faculty should

have a say regarding institutional relationships with outside entities—government

agencies, athletic conferences, the church, accrediting bodies, foundations, etc.—that

increasingly influence campus policies and priorities.” The American Association of University Professors Indicators of Sound Governance, (http://web.utk.edu/~senate/Form1.pdf)

In our model we have tried to follow this guideline by providing faculty a voice in every aspect of university life. An examination of our model will show that voice in many new areas: campus life, the library, and enrollment.

In terms of communication, we once again refer to the AAUP and its 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities:

“…a college or university in which all the components are aware of their interdependence, of the usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of joint action will enjoy increased capacity to solve educational problems…The variety and complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an inescapable interdependence among governing board, administration, faculty, students, and others. The relationship calls for adequate communication among these components, and full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort.”

We believe our model and its involving faculty in every aspect of university life provides a natural setting for communication among all components of the university.

University Governance System

On November **, 2008, President Hample proposed a new direction for the institution, one in which three colleges, a College of Arts and Sciences, a College of Business, and a College of Education, will constitute the principle organizational bodies of the university. President Hample set a time-line for the implementation of this plan by 2010. We propose that each of the newly established colleges creates a representative faculty senate to develop policies and procedures that address its distinctive curricular and programmatic needs, and that each of the colleges fully participates in a larger university governance system that will determine policies and procedures for issues that affect the institution as a whole. Each of the colleges would have a certain degree of autonomy under this model, but participation by all colleges in a university governance structure will ensure that: the faculty as a whole develop policies and procedures affecting the core missions and quality of the institution; that all UMW faculty operate under the guidelines of a single faculty handbook; and that all students, staff, and faculty adhere to a single system of academic regulations.

We propose that the university-level governance system reflect a structure wherein Standing Committees and a Council of Department Chairs present proposals for university-wide policies, procedures, and evaluation processes to a University Faculty Council, wherein shared issues can be discussed, conflicts resolved, and policies endorsed or returned to committees for adjustment.

The implementation of this system will require a great deal from both the faculty and the administration. We see the following considerations as critical to the success of this model:

· Increased faculty work load. University-level service will be added to college-service. Work will be especially demanding during the start-up of this model. Possible ameliorating factors: college- level service will be less demanding and some of the U-level committees will only meet once or twice a year (after start-up.)

· Administrative support. Course-releases for University Faculty Council members, funding, and clerical support are required if the model is to succeed.

· Faculty awareness. The faculty must have a working knowledge of governance structures and guidelines. This might involve training/mentoring for new faculty, a well-organized Governance web site, and a clear and concise faculty handbook.

University Faculty Governance Committee

Laurie Abeel (CGPS)

Dawn Bowen, co-chair 2007-2008 (CAS)

Gail Brooks (CGPS)

Angela Gosetti-Murray-John (CAS)

Jane Huffman, co-chair 2008-2009 (CGPS)

Kim Kinsley, co-chair 2007-2008 (CGPS)

David Long (CAS)

George Meadows, co-chair 2008-2009 (CAS)

Larry Penwell (CAS)

UNIVERSITY FACULTY COUNCIL:
Responsibilities:

• Represent the voice of the faculty to the Provost, President, and Board of Visitors
• Discuss, communicate, and take action on state legislative and other external affairs affecting the university
• Endorse or reject proposals for changes to policies, procedures, and evaluation processes proposed by university-level Standing Committees and by the Council of Department Chairs
• Select and Appoint a University Marshall whose responsibility it will be to announce the beginning and closing of the academic year and to confer the endorsement of the faculty upon the awarding of degrees at graduation ceremonies
• To vet and endorse the awarding of any Honorary Degrees bestowed by the University of Mary Washington

Composition:

• Elected head (President, Chair, etc) of the faculty governing body of each college of the institution (3)
• Elected representative (eg, President-Elect) of the faculty governing body of each college of the institution (3)
• Chairs of each of the University-level Standing Committees (8)
• Three representatives from the Council of Department Chairs, one from each college (3)

Leadership:

• The Chair (or other title) of the University Faculty Council will be selected by the members of the University Faculty Council
• The Chair (or other title) of the University Faculty Council will serve as the principle ambassador of the faculty to the Provost, President, and Board of Visitors

COUNCIL OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRS:
Responsibilities:

• To discuss, communicate (with individual departments and with the University Faculty Council), and propose, or advise against, changes to policies, procedures, and evaluation processes affecting departments and programs throughout the university.
• In collaboration with the university administration, determine and implement a system of rewards for service, particularly with respect to annual faculty evaluation and course-releases, so that self-governance can be as effective as possible

Composition:

• Chairs of academic departments throughout the University of Mary Washington
• Ex-Officio members of the administration, as needed and solely at the invitation of the department chairs

Leadership:

• One representative department chair from each college will serve on the University Faculty Council and may, if elected so by that body, serve as the Chair (or other title) of the University Faculty Council.

UNIVERSITY-LEVEL STANDING COMMITTEES
Responsibilities: The responsibilities of all University-Level Standing Committees shall be:

• To make faculty recommendations to the administration, president, and board of visitors on issues relevant to the status of the university
• To make recommendations (in the form of motions and resolutions) to the University Faculty Council respecting policies, procedures, and standard processes for evaluation on issues relevant to the charge of the committee and which pertain to the university at large

Composition: We recommend that the University Faculty Organization Committee, with this ad hoc committee on Faculty Governance acting in an advisory capacity, determine in the upcoming year (Spring 2009-Spring 2010) the composition of each of the university-level standing committees. Members of each committee may serve by:
a. general election (by college, to ensure equal representation, or by university)
b. appointment by the University Faculty Organization Committee
c. representation (from a college-level committee or senate body)
d. ex-officio representation of staff and/or administration

University Budget and Planning
Responsibilities:

• Make faculty recommendations to the administration, president, and board of visitors respecting institutional budgetary prioritizing and strategic planning, particularly (but not exclusively) as they pertain to:
  • Infrastructure
  • Instructional and Communications Technology
  • Transportation
  • Academic Programs
  • Academic Resources
  • University Life

University Faculty Affairs
Responsibilities:

• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to faculty affairs, professional development of faculty, academic freedom, and human resources. Specific responsibilities include:
  • Review and modify the faculty handbook as needed
  • Establish university-wide policies, procedures, and evaluation standards for tenure and promotion of faculty. This committee would not evaluate individual applications for tenure or promotion, which would be handled by college-level committees. Rather, it would set university-wide policy regarding procedure, evaluation standards, and a due process for grievance.
  • Address university-wide contingent faculty concerns and review and modify the adjunct faculty handbook as needed
  • Make recommendations regarding university-wide human resources policies, procedures, and evaluation processes, particularly as they relate to equity, diversity, grievances, and compensation and benefits
  • Make recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to internal and external grants, faculty development, and intellectual property
  • Make recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to the Institutional Review Board

University Academic Affairs and Resources
Responsibilities:

• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to academic resources. Specific responsibilities include:

• • Strategic planning for academic resources (particularly the Writing Centers, Speaking Center, Teaching Center, libraries and media resources, instructional technology, distance and blended learning capabilities, and the convergence center)
  • Define procedures by which each academic resource program is to be evaluated
  • We recommend that the chair (or designate) of a faculty advisory committee (the composition of which is to be determined by the University Faculty Organization Committee) for each of these programs serve as a member of the University-level Academic Affairs and Resources committee.
• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to academic affairs. Specific responsibilities include:

• • Review and modify the academic calendar to integrate and accommodate dynamic scheduling needs across the university
  • Review and modify (as needed) the Dictionary of Academic Regulations to guarantee consistency of policy, procedure, and evaluation processes across colleges

University Student Affairs and Campus Life
Responsibilities:

• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to campus life. Specific campus life issues this committee will address:

· Safety, suitability, and use of university buildings and grounds

· Health risks posed by university buildings and grounds

• • Environmental responsibility of the university

• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to student affairs. Specific student affairs issues this committee will address:

• • Judiciary
  • Athletics
  • Commuter Services
  • Bookstore
  • Residence Life and Programming
  • Technology
  • Food Services
  • International Student Services

University Faculty Organization
Responsibilities:

• Monitor the policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to university-level faculty governance to ensure that the structure is working optimally; make recommendations for adjustments to the faculty governance structure as needed. Specific duties include:
  • determine the composition of university-level standing, advisory, and relevant ad hoc committees
  • conduct elections of all university-level governance elected positions
  • appoint all university-level appointed positions
  • create university-level standing, advisory, and ad hoc committees as needed
  • eliminate university-level standing, advisory, and ad hoc committees as needed
  • formally charge university-level committees (standing, advisory, and ad hoc) with their responsibilities
  • assess the university-level governance system to ensure that the system remains optimally organized

Composition:

• We recommend that the Faculty Organization Committee of the College and Arts and Sciences and the FOWC of the College of Graduate and Professional Studies work together initially (Spring 2009-Spring 2010) as a transition University Faculty Organization Committee.
• We further recommend that the during year of transition, the interim University Faculty Organization Committee and this ad hoc committee tasked with proposing a new university-level governance structure collaborate to determine:
  • composition and internal structure of university-level committees
  • the election and/or appointment process wherein members of university-level committees will serve
  • appropriate representation of ex officio members from the staff and/or administration

Institutional Assessment and Evaluation
Responsibilities:

• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to institutional assessment and evaluation. Specific responsibilities include:

• • Determine policies, procedures, and evaluation processes for faculty evaluations of the administration
  • Oversee institutional research needs and the policies, procedures, and evaluation processes wherein faculty collaborate with the Office of Institutional Research to acquire relevant data about the institution and its effectiveness
  • Develop health measures for the institution; develop metrics to measure the quality of institution
  • Ensure that the University of Mary Washington’s policies, procedures, and evaluation processes are optimal in terms of helping the institution remain in compliance with the measures and standards of accrediting bodies (SACS, SCHEV, etc.)

University Program and Curriculum
Responsibilities:

• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to university programs and university-level curriculum. This committee will not determine curricular and program policy, procedure, and evaluation process at the college level, but will make recommendations respecting programmatic and curricular issues that have impact beyond the college-level. Specific issues this committee will address:
  • Graduate programs and curriculum
  • Undergraduate programs and curriculum, including General Education requirements
  • Continuing education programs and curriculum

University Enrollment Management* (Standing or Advisory Committee?)
Responsibilities:

• Make faculty recommendations respecting policies, procedures, and evaluation processes that pertain to undergraduate and graduate student enrollment. Specific duties include:
  • Making recommendations respecting minimum undergraduate and graduate admissions standards to which all colleges adhere
  • Make recommendations respecting enrollment of international and exchange students

HELPFUL AND NECESSARY MECHANISMS THAT WILL EASE THE TRANSITION INTO A UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

• An academic calendar that includes university-level meeting times
• The technology required to have virtual meetings
• University-provided transportation between campuses; better parking facilities at the Fredericksburg campus
• Room availability for small, committee-sized meetings and large meetings of the entire faculty
• Electronic Scheduling for faculty and staff schedules
• Electronic Notification of Major University events, particularly meetings of university-level standing committees and the University Faculty Council
• Leadership on behalf of the faculty and the administration
• Rewards for Service (during the peer-evaluation process; and also in the form of course reductions for particularly onerous service)
• Administrative Support (Office of faculty governance; dedicated web presence; tech support; library of governance resources)
• Clerical Support

I.  FEARS:  What are we afraid of with respect to transitioning to 3 colleges (CAS, BUS, ED)

***Relationship between campuses//Colleges

a. Transportation between campuses IF one of the colleges transfers to Stafford campus; services (academic–>library is understaffed, underresourced; food services lacking; isolation);;  but there is a lot of land (300 acres?) adjacent to CGPS campus. Will the MWC campus become the “branch campus”?  Ask Jeff Roundtree to do a presentation of plans for that land.

b. Any of three colleges be centered at Stafford campus.   Will the 3 colleges just deliver appropriate courses at Stafford campus?

c. Suggestion for solution: sell CGPS campus to Geico:: BUT: What about the state’s request that we serve under-served populations??????

d.  Education: 1. students AND faculty will be isolated; students cannot major in educ.–>integrated with main campus–5th year grad. students worried

e.  Colleges of Peers; one faculty handbook; university of peers.

f.  IS it a good idea to have 3 colleges (possibly more later)?  The faculty should consider whether this is desirable.  Fundamental change.

g. Timeline: JULY 2010 for setting up 3 colleges

h. combining programs that have developed quite differently will be challenging

i. an institu. separated geographically, culturally, contractually–> can’t stand; so, how do we connect these colleges through gov. structure; what activiities span across all colleges–> Academic Affairs, for ex.; Fac. Affairs

j.  would CAS faculty and students split time between campus? or split off bus. and educ. onto staff. campus?

k. The problem of inheriting a set of admissions standards, etc.

l.  But–traditional student population not going to be 18-22 year olds for long; changing demographics

m.  Tenure is a critical issue;  it is a programmatic issue–> tenure in programs;

n. committees formulate policy that cover everyone in three colleges; have curriculum standards, regularize student admission standards, etc.

o.  Consultant to help us transition into colleges; we don’t know who these consultants will be; going VERY fast.

p. faculty repr. for faculty search committee (meeting–Dec.16); should we ask for MORE faculty???  is consultant running search? how much input will fac. have? last dean search–1 admin. and 3 fac. for Dean Palmer (arrived sometime around 1993)

q. urgency issue related to SACS–coming back in 2013. We’ll have to start prepping in 2011.  Concern that we haven’t accomplished much in last 5 years. urgency to do SOMEthing.

r. Great fear: continued sense of subservience of faculty and faculty governance; motion now–> make a resolution

s.

Here are some initial results from the UMW October faculty governance survey.  It’s a PowerPoint file, click on the link below to download.

Initial results of UMW faculty governance survey

For what its worth…

LWP

As a follow-up to the conference, CAS has held two fora to discuss the need for university-level faculty governance systems. Though small in number, the participants had a lot to say and the discussions covered a lot of domains. Below are the notes I captured during those discussions, followed by some commentary.

We began by discussing the survey on governance that the committee sent to all UMW faculty in October.  There was some question about how much we can generalize or trust the survey’s findings, because some faculty found the survey to be confusing and/or too long. We will publish those findings as soon as we can sort through the results and figure out how to best present them. We’ll leave it to you to decide what to make of them. We did find some of the information useful.

Second, in designing a new organizational structure, or assessing an existing one, among the various models I employ is Weisbord’s Six Factor organizational diagnostic model. Weisbord argues that for an organization to be successful it must have clarity of purpose, a structure designed to accomplish that purpose, reward systems that reinforce the purpose, mechanisms that help the organization accomplish its purpose (i.e. helpful mechanisms), healthy role relationships that function to fulfill the purpose, and leadership that makes sure all of the other factors are working, and adapting to changes in the organizations environment.   This model helps me make sure I don’t miss anything critical, and that I ask the right questions during an assessment.  So I tried (rather unsuccessfully) to use his model to guide the discussions at the fora.  So to help me make sense of what was said, I’ve used it to structure my notes. The organization we were discussing turned out to be Faculty Governance in general at UMW, not just University level faculty governance, with lots of specific references to existing systems at CAS.

Purpose of a Faculty Governance System:

• Institution’s primary task is education (the work of the faculty)
• Representation of faculty’s interests and concerns
• Influence the decision making at all levels
• Make decisions in the areas directly delegated to the faculty
• Advocacy for faculty interests and concerns
• Provide leadership
• Provide legitimacy
• Empower the faculty voice
• Policy input
• Involved in consultation and deliberations in all areas of the university
• Need influence on Policy and Process
• Missing from this list, in my opinion are:

Assure Academic Integrity

Enhance Academic Excellence

Ensure Academic Freedom

Manifest the Will of the faculty.

I’m sure there are others

Structure

• Budget, New Program Deployment, Planning, Compensation and Benefits are clearly shared concerns among all faculty, most include other constituents on campus, hence shared governance.
• Need representation on the BOV and better relationship with the Board
• Committees of the Board should include voting faculty
• Need Alumni Board Representation by elected faculty
• Roles need to be well defined and interconnected
• Worry about too many layers deauthorising the existing structures
• Need structure that gets things done
• Built in program review for all programs – academic and administrative
• Involves department chairs and program directors
• Venn diagram of common areas – new university level structures in common areas only.
• Some areas may involve classified staff, administrative faculty, and specific administrators
• Protect the autonomy of the Colleges, eg. curriculum, tenure and promotion, evaluation procedures, expectations. Policy may be set at the university level, specifics should be defined at the college level.
• Clarify and strengthen the role of Senator
• How do you structure representation – are all pigs equal? House of representatives model or senate model?

Rewards

• Course release for the President of the Senate and the Academic Council?
• Value committee work and other governance service?
• Others?
• This area clearly needs more thought!

Relationships

• Are schools going to be formed?
• Disconnects between constituents, administrative roles, and work of the faculty
• Tension between statutory authority and professional authority
• Two different cultures, missions, schedules, and working hours.
• Physical distance is a problem
• Lack of trust – among faculty, between administration and faculty
• Connection to the Alumni Board
• Strong sense of the faculty being marginalized
• Role of the Department Chair needs a link to the Senate
• Networked better

Helpful Mechanisms (though meant to be helpful, some may interfere with the work)

• Need a University Calendar that allows common meeting time across campuses
• Need more Tele-video conferencing systems
• Need a process for Tenure on the CGPS Campus (by program?)
• Need IR responsive to faculty requests for data and data collection
• Need data driven deliberations and decision making
• Need clear definitions of University Governance, Shared Governance, and Faculty Governance
• Existing Culture and history may interfere with change efforts – mistrust abounds.
• Current organizational structure is not particularly helpful
• Two separate faculty handbooks – policies & procedures as well – should this change?
• More engagement of faculty in governance
• Establish ways of building consensus
• Enhance the authority of elected faculty
• Enhance formal and informal communication mechanisms
• Build trust
• Strengthen the Chairs as a group – give them a stronger voice.
• Strenghten the Senate – should junior faculty be allowed to serve?
• Integrate the faculty committees with the senate
• Value Committee work
• Need a list of “common concerns”

An initial list of common concerns:  i.e., potential areas in which faculty governance at the university-level makes sense:

1. Budget and Strategic Planning
2. Planning and Development
3. Honorary Degrees
4. Comp and Benefits
5. Grievances
6. Appointment of Academic Administration
7. Academic Appointments for administration
8. Academic Programs – initiating new programs
9. Student Experience
10. teaching Center
11. Library
12. IT
13. Facilities and Security
14. Grants and Development
15. Admission Standards
16. Legislative Affairs – FSVA

Leadership

• Create a way that the faculty can speak with a single voice
• Empower the faculty
• Make all of this happen

Environment

• SCHEV
• Assembly
• Regional changes

Commentary – The most significant thing I took away from the fora was the sense of how powerless the faculty feel – and the participants were, in large part, faculty who have taken significant leadership roles in establishing the senate and other key domains here. These folks have had a great deal of success and influence in improving life for faculty here on campus and yet there was a sense of being un-empowered. Perhaps the key task in establishing a university-level faculty governance system is to change that dynamic and provide a mechanism by which faculty could acquire and sustain greater influence.

I was struck as well by two other things.  First, how much history constrains us from envisioning an alternative future. Our past failures and, for that matter, the leaders who said no are gone. The opportunity to change from, in Palmeri’s words, the plantation model, to a more inclusive shared model may be upon us (don’t know for sure but strongly suspect).  Second, we do a whole lot of “we/they” thinking, i.e. inter-group dynamics. They – the administration, and they – the other campus, somehow are objects we use to project our fears, anxieties, blame, shame and anger upon, while we struggle with our sense of disenfranchisement. In that disenfranchised state of mind, we routinely undercut each other and devalue the work of our colleagues on the Senate and serving on faculty committees.  We have the opportunity to change these dynamics, I hope we will.

The presentation slides for “Should Librarians Have a Seat at the Table? Faculty Status for Academic Librarians and the Role Librarians Play in Faculty Governance” are available at: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=d95bk25_5mj2v7vcj

The References handout is available at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcmx5qrt_91dtjn8nxq.

Thank you!

Jami Bryan, University of Mary Washington,  jbryan at umw.edu
Charlotte Johnson Jones, University of Mary Washington,  cjjones at umw.edu

Here are Angela Gosetti-Murrayjohn’s notes of Dr. LaVista’s talk. CAVEAT: These are personal notes, and are undoubtedly insufficiently comprehensive.

DANIEL LAVISTA

• Concepts introduced during morning talk and sessions:
  • BOV–infrequency of members being on campus
  • assault on tenure
  • commercialization of education
  • moving people to action: don’t wait for others to take the lead
  • revitalization concept through multi-tiered communication system
  • build a structure that can be (and should be) flexible to adapt to current and future needs
• “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent” (Thomas Jefferson)
  • good gov. requires that faculty of good conscience speak up
  • faculty tend to take a deep interest in all areas pertaining to health of institutions of higher ed
  • even in cases when fac. and admin. and/or BOV’s are at odds, often that conflict was unnecessary
• All of the “state stakeholders”
  • SCHEV
  • governor, attorney general, general assembly
  • BOV’s
• Roles of stakeholders/participants
  • BOV–heart of it; put focus on BOV
    • invested by commonwealth with stewardship of institution
    • constituted with “sufficient objectivity”
    • provided with sufficient information to perform stewardship
    • got this responsibility because they advanced the reputations of their institutions
    • BOV’s should be active in the legislature, advancing interests of their institutions of higher ed
    • “Trusteeship” cartoon: kinds of qualifications wanted in board members
      • someone who knows right from wrong
    • paper James T. Minor:
      • last 2 decades have blurred lines of authority
        • distance ed
        • corporate sponsorship
        • patent/ IP

Successful Governance:

• Faculty have right to be a part of instit. policies and they possess primary responsibility for curriculum, subject matter
  • closing the loop: participation and authority
• Define mission statement of faculty governance; publish it widely; authorizing language
• Presence of mutual trust and respect between faculty, administrations, and BOV’s
  • can trump weak governance structures
  • but, only if all parties believe that faculty, admin, and BOV are essential for health and progress of institution
• achieve and celebrate success with difficult issues
  • distance education and effect on faculty load
  • assessing student learning (Spelling’s report)
  • economic development interests of the state

These 4 elements help institutions address challenges

Challenges ahead:

• “Advancing Virginia”
  • heavy emphasis on assessment of learning
  • business/corporate model

Here is a copy of our excel file of those who have registered for this conference.

Here are Angela Gosetti-Murrayjohn’s notes on Dr. Andersen’s talk.  Caveat: these notes may not reflect an accurate representation of his talk so much as my attempt to capture what I thought were some of the most significant points he made.

DR. KENNETH ANDERSEN’S TALK

• recovering the act of civic life
  • challenge of bringing in younger faculty to participate in shared governance
  • Aristotle–Politics–to have a good life, one needs to live in a good polis
    • need to live in an instit. that enables the living of the good life: to construct the good polis, we need
      • politics;
      • rhetoric (communication, not just persuasion)
      • ethics
    • making good choices (doctrine of choices)
      • if make bad choices, another array of choices; slowly pattern leads one down alternate (not good) paths
  • long-term–deal with issues not yet confronting us, but flexible and adaptable to meet needs years to come
  • issues that exist now and those that will exist in fut.
  • variety of communities within the polis (depts., public system of higher ed in va., univ., campus, discipline, professoriate as a whole, jr. or senior, humanist/scientist, social scientist)
    • define the community:
      • who participates
      • rights and responsibilities
      • obligations
      • is it 1 unit or 2? 3? system? one univ.?
      • student and staff voices?
      • mechanism to make decisions for univ. as a whole to cut across all campus
      • or do we force administr. to become decider
        • resource allocation
        • standards for hiring, rewarding
        • programmatic decisions
        • who gets tenure, and therefore protection of academic freedom
      • DO WE WANT IT TO BE??? CONSENSUS
      • growth from small to broader communities through involvement in faculty governance
        • good of whole of institution
        • participating in gov. structure that builds links, commitment
• create parts of faculty gov. anew
  • enhance quality of life of citizens of state, nation, world
  • who votes?
  • what other voices should be heard?
    • admin.
    • adjunct
    • students
    • staff
  • when move from direct to representative participation?
    • what structure/committees
    • who appoints them
    • who serves on them
    • to whom do they report
    • who owns their product
      • example: T&P
        • who votes: untenured?
        • who makes decisions, how many people involved?
        • who elects that committee?
        • who looks at the documents?
        • who tests the “validity argument”? at the univ.
        • appeal route? who can hear appeals?

• • dev. of system of shared gov. –>create impact
    • range of committees necessary
    • as univ. become more and more central to econ. development, service to state, etc.,
      • what used to be certificate to move into middle class no longer is–instit. higher ed. –missions and resp. have changed significantly–access, life-long learning, flexibility to meet myriad of demands
      • fac. gov. has great demands on it, and must be sufficiently flexible to address those demands
      • needs appropriate information; reasonable degree of transparency; demonstrability of effectiveness; problem-solving in camera, in secrecy, some degree of confidentiality, respons. to faculty
      • adequate support by administration (RELEASE TIME)
      • stigma of being involved in fac. governance–> why spend time on gov. stuff?
    • rapport, confidence between fac. and admin. required.
• responsibilities of fac. gov. + process
  • particip. in process by which shared decisions reached**

VALUES OF SHARED GOV. SYSTEM

ENHANCED INFORMATION FLOW: people know what’s going on that’s relevant to them; “best way to maintain confidentiality, please tell the faculty the following” (how true!!)

GREATER ACCEPTANCE OF DECISIONS MADE: have to end up with support for decisions made by the organization; once the vote is taken, after debate, it’s your decision

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITY ORGANIZATION: nature of univ., road blocks, participate–someone OF univ. who participates in that development and growth; sense of ownership

EXPRESS OPINIONS AND VIEWS THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BY PUBLIC AS NOT COMING FROM ADMINISTRATION–: this is what faculty thinks. can be powerful tool; need a structure to say “this is a faculty opinion”–”the voice of the faculty” and this is what we recommend.

GREATER TRUST AND BELIEF IN ADMINISTRATION; GREATER TRUST IN FACULTY BY ADMINISTRATION: trust through shared gov.; how can trust be established in a culture of mistrust????

AAUP GUIDELINES: tested over again; strongly recommend; doesn’t prescribe, but provides good outlines, reservoires of support; independent AAUP chapter; check on system and univ.;

Pitfalls along the way:

• fac. gov. can take excessive time to make decisions
  • there is necessity to make timely decision in timely manner
• adequate resources
  • often info. lacking, get data from imp. pieces of admin.,
• wrong people can distort (‘issue riders’); can impede process; can blind other issues important
• participants often not rewarded; in fact, sometimes actively punished
• not enough people say thank you
• administration sees other stakeholders (particularly external) that faculty often don’t see==> and admin. sometimes provides for fac. when fac. cannot provide for itself

Video recordings of the speakers of the Faculty Governance: Governance in Higher Education conference.

Download

Kenneth Anderson

Download

Daniel LaVista

Download

Mary Burgan