University Governance

8-27-09 1:10pm Session

What are the challenges our university governance system needs to overcome?

Possible Topics:
Challenges to address
Goals and Purposes
Idea and Structures

Concerns

At gathering re Envisioning Meeting (last Tues)

President isn’t answering the questions…

Disappointed in him…
(Lunch comments, no specifics)

Financial issue not addressed at meeting

Maybe mixed signals as to the purpose of the meeting.

Give him the benefit of the doubt.

What are the challenges that Pres will need to deal with re University Governance?

Is it an issue that there is only one person representing academics in the direct reporting to President?

Should there be a VP of Academics for Rindge, CGPS, Goodyear, etc.

Why will this structure work or what would it solve.

This is educational institution but is underrepresented when dealing with the Pres. This
structure will address that issue.
Improve accountability & communication

Looking for top-down model rather than a decentralized model (less dispersed).

Coordination of CGPS undergrad and Rindge undergrad

What do other institutions do?

What is the role of faculty

Is union presence a hindrance to shared governance?

Need some agreement as to what faculty can be part of in terms of governance.

What are the domains and responsibilities of University units – need to clarify these to define “shared
governance”
What are the things that need to be governed? How to then do it?

Challenges that need to be addressed

Rindge has its own curricular process; CGPS has its own
What are options for better integration?

Do we want to maintain two structures or do we need to integrate the two?

Look at org charts and see what things look like.

“The faculty will decide” (the curriculum)

Is it possible for faculty to truly make the academic decisions? (ala Yeshiva)
How would faculty “up” work, vs. Board “down” processes?

What don’t we want to lose as we try to address the issues?

How do we deal with the conundrum of getting more control? Can faculty truly get more control?
Maybe faculty would be more engaged if they owned something? (have the power)

Does “shared” end somewhere (eg, up the hierarchy)?

Is the IRC process a good model of shared governance? Too bad that it is only implemented in dire
times.

Things that should be done now:

1. Faculty elect reps to (eg) the president and CFO search committees.

2. Should be faculty rep on the Board.

Should have:
Direct liaison between faculty, staff, administration and president.
To identify good things that are happening
Things for improvement

What is the possibility of sharing people……..

Kim mentioned she wants “a seat at the table” for curriculum, faculty, etc., discussions.
Faculty reply, they want a seat on the senior staff, board, etc.

Share more in the process.

University Governance
8-27-09 2:10 Session

Challenges

1. communications biggest issue – sorting out what’s “true” (rumors, beliefs)

How to improve faculty voice

“Truth in Advertising” comment:

(What did it mean?) We’re told we (faculty) have a voice but then there is none.

How do we deal with this? (Charging committee but then not listening to their
recommendations.) Ad hoc committees don’t seem to work well. How do we decide, esp.
Rindge v CGPS

Look at governance committees and decide whether the important tasks get the right weight.

Propose reduction in the number of members of committees so that more committees can be
manned. Everyone is committeed out.

Broaden definition of committee responsibilities and qualifications for committee membership.

(beyond the CBA – maybe don’t belong there)

Look at how committees are constructed. Who is eligible and who should not be? Who
can/must serve – rank, service?

Should 1st year faculty get a pass on committees?

Should 1st and 2nd year faculty be prohibited from being chairs.

How do you integrate CGPS/Rindge based on very different entities, differing students, grad
and professional, representation, etc….

Decisions aren’t just between faculty and senior staff. Many constituencies should be
considered to be a part of whatever governance structure (committee structures)

Issue with Governance (for non-faculty) is interacting with President and not having the
protection of CBA.

Current structure is decided at top and then the rest forms based on the top down decision.
Does integration happen at the top?

Both Rindge and CGPS should either be CBA or not.

CGPS is entrepreneurial and that has implications to moving to CBA.

Academic freedom issues…….. they do exist.

Is there a way to allow all to be able to speak without reprisal and without the protection of
CBA?

KM- It is about institutional culture.

KM- believes that those not covered by CBA do have the freedom, however, they may not
believe that they do.

360 degree performance reviews should be implemented, not just by supervisors. Need more
consistent evaluation and feedback.

Pierce Council-
Can be effective if re-structured. Shouldn’t be a President reporting/talking to members, the
members should actually do something.

Where is the middle ground between Rindge, staff, administration, CGPS? It can’t be all
covered by the President. Is “Council” the body that receives reports and finishes the work
flow loop?

Decision making power must be ceded for certain decisions.

Then faculty need to step up and take accountability.

People holding on to authority….

KM- because they weren’t at the table during the discussion. The admin needs “buy in” too.

What ever it is needs to be institutionalized rather than personalized.

(KM = Kim Mooney)