Statutes & Bylaws Team Report to the University Senate

11-29-04

submitted by Dr. J. W. Good

Membership

• Ken Farr
• Lee Gillis
• JW Good, Chair
• Harry Glover
• Anne Gormly
• Quintus Sibley
• Craig Turner

Overview

• The Statutes & Bylaws Team has held several meetings supported by writing workshops to develop a draft document of revised Statutes that is now ready to go to the hearing process.
• The purpose of today’s report is not to consider the Statute revisions themselves, but to review the goals, hearing process and where we go from here.
• We have several goals in developing policy beginning with Statutes revisions including the following:
  • Clarify and strengthen the role of shared governance in policy development;
  • Eliminate duplication with the BOR Policy Manual which guides or directs everything we do at the level of the institution; and,
  • Eliminate statements of shared governance procedures which need to be attached directly to policy that you, the US, approve and control at all times.  The first rule of policy is that the approving body has control at all times. 
• For each Statute, the primary questions which serve as criteria for placement in the Statutes section of policy are the following:  
  • 1.  Does this Statute capture a "policy" or "fact" that we expect not to change with great frequency?
  • 2.  Is this Statute more appropriate for inclusion in the Bylaws or a "Handbook" of the organization/group to which it applies?
  • 3.  Should this Statute require BOR approval to change?
  • In the event, that the answer to question 1 was "No" or the answer to question 2 was "Yes" or the answer to question 3 was "No", then our recommendation was to remove the Statute.  The general property that the majority of the Statutes share is that they should be "hard to change." 
  • Any Statutes statements that are removed as part of the revision process are alive and well in a "Policy and Procedure Parking Lot" and ultimately may reside in the appropriate policy, bylaw, or handbook document.
• The hearing process is critical to you as University Senators in the new direction of how you involve the entire university community in shared governance which has as its primary goal the development of policy. 
• The purpose of the hearing process consisting of two scheduled hearings during a two-month period is to provide the entire campus community with an opportunity to review the purpose of revisions, to review the draft document and to comment on the draft leading to final consideration by the US during the meeting of January 31, 2005.

Revision Goals:  Fall Semester

• Revise University Statutes consistent with the Statutes & Bylaws team charter
• Define ‘policy’ as those governance documents that have progressed through the university shared governance process, approved by the US and ultimately approved by the President.  There shall be no other ‘policy’ at the university.

Revision Goals:  Spring Semester

• Create an official university-level manual in which resides the policy of the university accompanied by administrative procedures to implement the policy and by any exhibits such as forms that are needed as referenced in procedures
  • Develop a classification system for codifying policy approved by the US with final approval by the President
  • Establish a template to organize, store and maintain each policy in a consistent manner and to reference the BOR Policy Manual or other guiding documents
    • The BOR Policy Manual guides or directs everything we do at the campus level.  Statutes and university policy can not operate independently of the BOR Policy Manual as noted by the following example:
      • The BOR approves a policy encouraging the use of landscaping as a means of supporting reflective practice and creativity
      • You, the US, develop through shared governance and hearings a policy on encouraging the planned use of trees consistent with the broader BOR policy on landscaping
        • Upon approval by the President, administrative procedures are developed on what trees can be planted where and by whom
        • Procedures note a form included as an exhibit to allow persons to petition the administration for a tree dedication

• Revise US Bylaws

Statutes Timeline

Implications of Revisions

• The development of policy at the university level is unique in Georgia higher education because there is a central board of control establishing policy for 34 institutions.   Additionally, Georgia faculties have had minimal opportunities to get involved in the real work of what guides the direction of an individual institution.
• Even more unique is the demonstrated faith at GC&SU in, and commitment to, shared governance to establish real policy.  Policy at any campus in Georgia is what the President says that it is.  Dr. Leland has said that all policy approved by her shall go through shared governance. 

Draft Statutes

• Revisions available at the following site: http://info.gcsu.edu/intranet/univ_senate/Statute_Revisions_2004-2005/index.htm