University Senate Bylaws & Governing Concepts Committee
Institutional Model of Shared Governance
Effective Governance Table
Power
Dimension Description
· Power: Capability of the University Senate to decide what decisions to influence, who makes the decision and how to make great policy
· Power is defined by three questions: Who decides? What? How?
· Disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and take disciplined action. GTG
· Success comes from no grand program, innovation or single action. GTG
What Works
· Evidence:
o Who decides?
§ A balance of elected and appointed members can contribute to capacity if used to enhance capacity as a governing concept. Current Senate composition: 36 elected faculty/administrators, 5 administrators by title, 1 staff member, 1 student member, 6 appointed by President (students, staff)
o What?
§ Vet policy recommendations introduced by the administration
§ Review policy implementation introduced by the administration
o How?
§ Campus Input Strategies:
· Committee Meeting: Uses consensus development at times, democratic voting at times
· Governance forum: Uses consultation at times (committee is decision maker and asks for input prior to making the decision)
· Research:
§ Since governance has to do with who decides, how decisions are made and where decisions are made it is strongly tied to the issues of power and legitimacy. Given our history who makes decisions and how decisions are made becomes quite an important issue. (unknown, nd)
§ Uniqueness: The local environment and differing campus concerns tend to render each institution¹s governance structure unique. (Snyder, nd)
o Who decides?
§ By governance we understand not simply the system of administration and control...but the whole process by which...policies are formulated, adopted, implemented and monitored. Governance is an issue not only at the national level but also at every level of the system...Because it is centrally concerned with the distribution of power it is often summed up by the question: Who decides? (Buckland and Hofmeyr, 1993). The merits of this definition are that it emphasizes the structural, human agency and empirical dimensions of the concept of governance as well as the relationship between governance and decision and policy-making.
§ First, there is the institutional senate, a ‘stakeholder’ structure in which all the institution¹s constituent groups are represented. Stakeholders typically include administrators, faculty, and students; they may also include staff. Representatives are usually elected, though some, such as senior administrators, may serve ex officio, and others may be appointed. Often the president of the institution or a senior administrator such as the provost presides over the senate’s meetings. (Snyder, nd)
§ Decide who exercises power among the central shared decision making policy issues (Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994)
§ Implementation of shared governance was not in and of itself a redistribution of power; new roles must be openly discussed and process supported by senior administration. Policy makers tread a fine line between providing structure and allowing participants to discover the shared governance process for themselves. (Sidner, 1995)
§ The legitimacy of a decision-making body depends on its power and on the election of respected members. Those I interviewed agreed that council members were respected. In the beginning, the council included all full professors as well as nonprofessorial staff. The ideal council member was seen as someone who was articulate, rational, and assertive, and who had the interests of the whole university in mind rather than just his or her own narrow disciplinary interests. (Currie, 2005)
§ Holding elections and having people contest them increased the legitimacy of the council. "There have been great people on it in the past, and there are great people on it now. I think a really positive thing is the filling of places on academic council. They are real elections," said Michael Borowitzka, the current president of the council. (Currie, 2005)
§ In fall 2002, William Tierney, guest editor of this issue of Academe, visited the University of Minnesota as part of a study of faculty governance in American higher education. Afterward, he conveyed his impressions of governance at Minnesota, writing, "The fastest-growing group in academe is academic staff. We have very little research about them, and our collective understanding of their needs and desires is anecdotal. . . . We need to think more clearly about what issues pertain to the entire community so that multiple constituencies [can be] involved, and what issues are best left to the faculty because they fall within a clearly academic domain." (Engstrand, 2005)
o What?
§ From the beginning, the council's decisions were meant to be final. Neither the senate (similar to a board of trustees with a majority of lay members) nor the administration could overturn them. Commenting on this governance structure, Stephen Griew, Murdoch's first vice chancellor (president), noted, "Another important principle was to encourage real discussion of fundamental academic issues and avoid a rubber-stamping function by council." (Currie, 2005)
§ In his interview with me, the current council president talked about the importance of having people ask the hard questions and enunciate their points well. A past president mentioned the value to the university of bringing expertise to bear on problems that don't have obvious answers. Expressing this perspective in a nutshell, Bev Thiele, an associate professor, concluded, "When the council works best, it is great at problem solving." (Currie, 2005)
§ Second, the faculty voice in matters that pertain to academic issues and matters of faculty status must be definitive. (Snyder, nd)
o How?
§ Decisions are made in four major ways: authoritarian, consultative, democratic, and consensus. (Tennessee Associates, 1993)
§ . . . the workings of the senate must allow for an open exchange of opinion, free of intimidation and the threat of retribution. In the absence of these conditions, no senate model can succeed. (Snyder, nd)
§ The idea of shared governance assumes that a mix of people will participate in structures that encourage joint decision making. In loosely coupled organizations like universities, where no clear or systematic process for reaching decisions exists, the possibility for misunderstanding is significant. But the point is not to try to create a tightly coupled system, for such an attempt would be a fool’s errand. It would be as if we decided to apply the rules of basketball to baseball because we objected to the length of baseball games. (Tierney, 2001)
§ Instead, we need to think about how to improve decision-making processes within a loosely coupled system. If those of us who work in postsecondary institutions refuse to rethink the structures that frame our work or reconsider the organizational cultures that define our lives, we will not be able to meet the increased demands of the twenty-first century. (Tierney, 2001)
What Does Not Work?
o Evidence
o Who decides?
§ Perception that the right stakeholders are not involved effectively with making decisions that impact them. Inclusive representation on committees as follow: ECUS: 4 elected faculty, President, VP AA; 4 standing committees of 15 members with one administrator by position and minimum of 8 senators, and 1 student member
§ Capacity (numbers of persons knowledgeable of [shared] governing concepts and engaged at program, department, school, university levels) appears to be minimal and reserved for a small percentage of faculty and staff.
o What?
§ Perceived tendency to question policy implementation strategies of the administration
§ Are policy recommendations flowing from administrators to each of the standing committees?
o How?
§ Committee debate may continue in Senate deliberations.
o Research
o The institutional senate admittedly has a certain democratic appeal, but unless carefully structured, it runs the risk of obscuring and diluting the faculty’s unique responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. (Snyder, nd)
o The system freezes. My research indicates that the kinds of failures I have outlined continually repeat themselves, so that those who have worked at reform are less willing to put in time when another effort is suggested. "Why bother?" becomes the refrain.
The result is that the system freezes. Although faculty members may be unhappy with the status quo, they realize that their work toward change will end only in frustration. Collaborative work is shunned because of a history of previous failures. This static culture is particularly worrisome at a time when the academy is under pressure to change. (Tierney, 2001)
o Who decides?
o Most important, people are often unclear about who makes a final decision. Faculty members may assume that when they make a decision about how a problem should be solved, their decision will be honored. A dean, however, may have a completely different idea and see the faculty’s role as entirely advisory. (Tierney, 2001)
o Furthermore, the decision-making structures in loosely coupled organizations are often unclear, exacerbating problems created by a lack of scheduling. Frequently, no one in a particular institution is ever quite sure which constituencies need to be involved in one or another decision, or how decisions are finally made, causing so much confusion and indecision that the innovation attempt grinds to a halt. (Tierney, 2001)
o On one campus I studied, an attempt to improve faculty development was stymied when so many committees became involved in the undertaking that simply sorting out who was responsible for deciding what overwhelmed the faculty member and administrator who initiated the process. The administrator moved the innovation to the bottom of her "to do" list, and the faculty member gave up and resigned from the committee. (Tierney, 2001)
o What?
o People can’t agree on the problem to be solved.
§ At one institution, for example, someone raised the issue of faculty development. Some people wanted to deal with sabbaticals and others with post-tenure review. That kind of lack of agreement stalls innovation. (Tierney, 2001)
§ Another kind of barrier arises when the individuals addressing a problem operate from different premises: they have different assumptions about the kind of information needed to reach a decision. Sabbatical reform requires information about how to improve the conditions for faculty renewal, whereas post-tenure review frequently calls for information about effective ways to evaluate individuals. (Tierney, 2001)
§ As I have noted, problems arise when a committee embarks on a project without having clearly defined goals. The charge to a committee should be specific enough for each member to be clear about the committee’s purpose. I found that reform committees that began with broadly defined issues ended up debating whether a problem existed rather than considering how to resolve it. Instead of charging a committee to look at "faculty development," as in the example noted above, a more narrowly designed assignment might prove more fruitful. (Tierney, 2001)
o How?
§ Time frames and structures are not clear.
· Frequently, faculty members assume they have unlimited time to work on a problem. Yet administrators often grow irritated that a problem remains unsolved after an academic year’s worth of meetings. An academic vice president I met, for example, wanted what he considered a modest revision of the standards for promotion and tenure to be implemented by year’s end. But the faculty on the promotion and tenure committee saw the change as major, and when the year ended, nothing had been accomplished. (Tierney, 2001)
· The problem is particularly vexing if decision making extends beyond an academic year. Typically, faculty do little administrative work in the summer, and when a new academic year begins, new committee members are invariably unaware of the discussions that took place the year before. The result is that new faculty members feel hurried and long-term faculty members and administrators perceive unnecessary delays in the implementation of an idea they already worked on the previous year. (Tierney, 2001)
· Among the successful committees I observed, initiatives often began with the assumption that a particular practice would change, not whether it should change. There is a fundamental difference between a committee that seeks to create change and one that is a study group. Both kinds of groups are necessary in any organization, but the people involved need to be clear about their charge prior to beginning their work. (Tierney, 2001)
· My recommendations are twofold. First, groundwork must be done before a charge is placed before a reform committee. A useful analogy might be to a successful capital campaign where the organization’s development office has reached 25 percent of its goal before the start of the campaign. Why begin an initiative if it is sure to fail? (Tierney, 2001)
· Second, one must be clear about the nature of the task—the committee will then have a better chance of collecting the kind of information it will need to make an effective decision. The point here is that reform committees need a flight path before they take off. The clearer one can be about where a committee is going, the more likely it will be that committee members will develop a plan that enables them to reach their destination. Without such a flight plan, the committee will take off on a risky and directionless adventure. (Tierney, 2001)
· Good ideas frequently flounder because the process of developing them was somehow flawed. A committee was not consulted, a dean was not involved, a deadline passed, and the opportunity vanished. Outlining who is responsible for what topic and how the issues will move through the process is a helpful way to inform all those involved. Similarly, people need to know when a vote will occur at the very outset of their deliberations. Far too often, prolonged filibusters by those who disagree doom an idea that the vast majority supports. The only danger to outlining when decisions will be made and when votes will happen occurs when the process is defined but not followed. (Tierney, 2001)
· When groups start obsessing about the decision-making processes, it is incumbent on the individuals in charge to follow the established process as closely as possible. As with air travel, deviations from a predetermined flight path only cause worry among those involved, and may in fact be dangerous. (Tierney, 2001)
Implications for US Bylaws
· Who decides?
o Perceived need to shape work so that relevant stakeholders work on relevant issues
o Guidance is needed to monitor and recommend strategies to build the capacity of the university to engage in shared governance such as expanded representation in providing input and clarification of committee functions. USB&GCC Charter
§ Specify through charter that specific standing committees have different weights for representation of faculty and staff and/or different responsibilities in seeking input from relevant stakeholders
§ Review composition of the US
o PL: Consider increasing the staff representation on the standing committees by possibly increasing the number of members on a standing committee from fifteen to a higher number or consider having a staff member on each committee much like we do for students. (ECUS, 01-19-05)
o PL: Consider (as part of a future statute and bylaw change package) substituting the VP for Institutional Research and Enrollment Management as an automatic US senator for the VP for Advancement. The former position (new under my administration) is much more closely associated with the academic program and student recruitment and retention issues. (Dr. Leland. 09-10-04)
§ Have 4 Presidential appointments from senior administrators and SGA Pres and Staff Council Chair. One advantage of this would be that reorganizations would not automatically require a bylaws change, i.e. there would be some flexibility.
§ Rather than 6 by title and 6 presidential appointees, maybe five by title (VPSA, VPAA, VPBF, SGA Pres, Staff Council Chair) and seven presidential appointees. (Statutes and Bylaws Team, 04-06-05)
o PL: Advisory/Standing Committees of Senate for student and staff with scope specified for each. (ECUS, 01-19-05)
o PL*C. 10. Is there need for the term “elected Senator” (any one of the thirty six members of the Senate that are elected to serve on the Senate, neither the six Senators that serve by title nor the six Presidential appointees are considered elected Senators) to be more carefully defined?. There was confusion to some faculty regarding the eligibility criteria for standing committee chairs. To see this term used in context in these bylaws, see Article V, Section 1.A.1.a (eligible for ECUS), and Article V Section 2.B.1 (members elected to the University Senate – standing committee chair eligibility) (Craig Turner, 08-30-04)
o PL*C. 1. Change the number of Senators required for a proposal from a non-Senator from five to two in Article IV, Section 1 (University Services Group, 5-11-04 Retreat)
o PL*C. 3. Require chair of the ad hoc committee to be a Senator? (Bob Wilson, 04-26-04)
· What?
o Clarification of committee functions. USB&GCC Charter
§ Establish a charter for each
§ PL: Ad hoc committee charter/registration form (J.W. Good, Craig Turner, Statutes and Bylaws Team, 04-06-05)
o Guidance is needed to reduce ambiguity concerning where and how to address specific issues; i.e. determining what is University Senate business, finding categories for that business and clarifying how to determine what is ‘passed’ and what is ‘reviewed.’ USB&GCC Charter
§ Within each charter specify functional areas for policy development and coding
§ Review process initiated by administration on procedure. Eventually a committee will review established policy in specific sections of the policy manual. Complications occur when procedure review is initiated by a committee.
o Define governance terms including policy and procedure in terms of what they mean to us (operational definitions).
§ Policy is recommended by the US and approved by the President
§ Procedure is developed by the administration and reviewed by committee
o Define the roles of policy recommendation and review within the US committee structure.
§ Review function for procedures developed in response to policy
§ Review function for operational issues initiated by the administration
§ Can a committee request a collaborative review of procedure? Administration has the right to decline?
o *D. 3. Initiation of Senate business from non-Senator (5 senators vs 2, supported and signed?)
· How?
o Establish a definitive charter where appropriate, possibly for all committees. (The university understands how a decision is made.)
o PL: Faculty Bylaws are dated (approved 04-17-97), for example they refer to Faculty Senate not University Senate, and are in need of revision (Craig Turner, 08-20-04) Ask USB&GCC to make a recommendation on what to do with these (update, rescind, other) informed by the context of policy changes (10-06-05, ECUS)
o PL*C. 17. Does the faculty need oversight over the university senate? This might take the form of posting attendance, tracking number of absences in the minutes, roll call votes, forms of peer pressure, other suggestions (Bylaws and Statutes Team, 11-03-04)
o PL*C. 8. Is there a need for oversight of administrative committees such as committee composition, terms of service of committee members, whether the administrative committee is active (meeting with any regularity) or dead wood? (Lee Gillis, Betty Block; 08-16-04)
Governing Concepts
· Who decides?
o AAUP Traits of Effective Senates: Has effective representation on other key governance groups
o AAUP Traits of Effective Senates: Are staff represented appropriately on those committees where decisions are non-academic and involve the entire community?
o Institutional Concept: Shared purpose implies one body of stakeholders
§ All stakeholder groups can move developmentally from self interest to promotion of the greater good.
· What?
o AAUP Traits of Effective Senates: Is regarded by the campus as dealing with crucial issues
o AAUP Traits of Effective Senates: Initiates a major portion of its agenda items
o Policy Concept: Have one set of policy recommended by one body to the president?
o Uniqueness Concept: Specify through charter that specific standing committees have unique responsibilities for policy and review?
· How?
o Is seen as an agent for necessary institutional change
o Collaborates on all agenda items with administration?
o Systems Theory Concept: Highly effective organizations concentrate on the interaction of the ‘parts’ rather than concentrate on the ‘parts’ themselves; How can the university using shared governance as a system get the best results for both policy and review functions by concentrating on the interaction of the president, administration, the US and the standing committees? (Administrators recommend at first level, standing committee considers and recommends at second level, US reviews for process congruence and makes final policy recommendation to president)
o Organizational Concept: Can an organization be highly effective without a clear path for decision making leading to policy? [not a trick question; is at the core of governing concepts]