USB & GCC

01-25-06

Tentative Agenda

1.   Review a possible descriptive modifier for Motivators:  Dr. Betty Block

2.      Review a single defining statement for each dimension:

            Shared Sense of Purpose:  Dr. Cheryl Reynolds

            Collegial Leadership:  Dr. Mike Whitfield and Dr. Ken Farr

            Transparent Decision Making:  Dr. JW Good

            Investment in Shared Governance:  Dr. Lee Gillis

            Adequate Resources:  Dr. Craig Turner and Dr. Anne Gormly

3.       Establish agenda for Feb. 01 meeting

Next Scheduled Meetings:  February 01 and February 08, 12:30 pm, K221

References

Document in Progress:

Governing Concepts

The following dimensions identify research-proven areas associated with high performing organizations and serve as a foundation for the development of shared governance:

1. Shared Sense of Purpose; 2. Collegial Leadership;  3. Transparent Decision Making;  4. Investment in Shared Governance;  5. Shared Information;   6.  Motivators;  7. Adequate Resources

  1.      Shared Sense of Purpose

The primary function of shared governance is recommending university policy through one body of representatives who demonstrate contagious enthusiasm in the culture of the university for a shared sense of purpose to achieve the goals of the university; further, university policy recommendation is accompanied and supported by the functions of reviewing matters collegially upon request of the administration, facilitating the referral of concerns and conveying shared intent through resolution.

2.  Collegial Leadership

3.      Transparent Decision Making

University policy, to be easily understood and widely supported by all constituencies, shall be one body of policy, procedures and exhibits housed in one location with a consistent format; additionally, university policy shall be developed by full and complete vetting of issues through committee actions using a transparent process of decision making respectful of how that process affects the confidence and trust of the university community and respectful of the interdependent roles the administration, faculty, staff and students have in developing and implementing university policy.

4.  Investment in Shared Governance

5.  Shared Information

Effective communication is best achieved through transparency in decision making including personal accountability for voting decisions.

6.  Motivators

Motivation of stakeholders in shared governance is impacted positively by identifying, confronting, communicating and debating both policy issues and barriers to trust in an intelligent, respectful manner. 

7.  Adequate Resources

 

Shared governance requires adequate human, temporal, and fiscal resources to draft and review university policy, fully vet university policy under consideration with the University community as well as formulate voting positions in consultation with constituencies, and support activities that will recognize current senators, develop future senators, and provide a culture characterized by a contagious enthusiasm for participation as well as confidence, familiarity and trust in the shared governance process.

Reference Document

Governing Concepts

The following dimensions identify research-proven areas associated with high performing organizations and serve as a foundation for the development of shared governance:

• Shared sense of purpose (S)
• Leadership to contribute to the goals of the university, effective management for continuous improvement of identified outcomes and processes, and development of relationships between and among decision makers (L)
• Adequate resources to carry out the functions of shared governance (R)
• Sustained teaching and learning to promote active participation by the campus community in shared governance (T)
• Effective use of communication systems to make and communicate decisions. (C)
• Effective use of motivation including objective fact finding and recognition (M)
• Comprehensive Delineation of how power is typically shared by defining who decides, on what do they decide, and how they make their decisions (P)

Shared Sense of Purpose

S1.   Achieving the goals of the university depends on a shared sense of purpose enacted by one body of university policy approved by the president and recommended by one final body of shared governance. 

S2.  The main function of shared governance is recommending university policy.  This primary concept is accompanied and supported by the functions of reviewing matters proposals upon request of the administration, facilitating the referral of concerns and conveying intent through resolution. 

S3.  Shared governance representatives should develop university policy giving primary consideration to impact on the goals or effectiveness of the university as a whole.  Feasibility, sustainability and institutional impact of university policy should also be important considerations; e.g., personnel, facilities, financial resources, expertise.  Of secondary concern should be the feasibility and sustainability of policy implementation as well as the implications of the policy for the workload of individual members of the university community as well as that of administrative offices and the various committees of shared governance. 

Leadership

L1.  Positive relationships among the administration, faculty, staff and students are more critical to achieving university goals than and to the structures of shared governance and, therefore, must be assessed regularly. 

L2.  Shared governance leaders must analyze and correct structural problems within shared governance the organization in order to improve the quality of university policy recommendations.

L3.  Shared governance leaders recognize that the university policy development process must define and specify roles, responsibilities and functions for efficient and effective management within and between committees; whereas university policy itself provides general guidance and individual flexibility and interpretation the importance of loose coupling theories particularly for academic excellence; including e.g., academic freedom, critical discourse, creativity, and liberal learning. and the importance of tight coupling for policy development.

Resources

R1.  Using resource dependency theory, Necessary intellectual resources to implement shared governance are obtained through networking and linking stakeholders who commit both time and expertise to shared governance activities. 

R2.  Shared governance is responsible for its own resources in that it shall have a plan for developing new leaders and for building the capacity of the university stakeholders to engage in shared governance.

R3.  Shared governance representatives should have adequate time to consult with their constituencies before voting or making recommendations on important issues. 

Teaching and Learning

T1.  Double-loop learning (governing concept, action, consequences) Development of university policy must be guided by vision, beliefs and governing concepts is necessary if the members of the university community are to make informed decisions in rapidly changing and often uncertain contexts.

T2.  All leaders of shared governance are responsible for teaching and learning both internally, for organizational development, and externally, for development of new leadership. 

Communication

C1.  Effective communication is best achieved through transparency in decision making including personal accountability for voting decisions.

Motivation

M1.  Motivation of stakeholders in shared governance is impacted positively by identifying, confronting, communicating and debating both policy issues and barriers to trust in an intelligent, respectful manner. 

• Effective shared governance implies that the administration, faculty, staff and students will develop and check for trust in relationships through competence, openness, benevolence (concern), reliability and commitment. 
• Shared governance must improve continuously by checking the perceptions of the university community on adherence to governing concepts.