MINUTES OF THE FACULTY FORUM
ON FACULTY GOVERNANCE
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
The meeting was convened by the Chair of the Forum, Newell Stultz, at 4:05 PM.
The chair recognized Professor John Savage who introduced the members of the Faculty Governance Task Force and reviewed its goals. In addition to Professor Savage, Computer Science (Chair), the task force members were Professors Nancy Armstrong, English (Vice Chair), Russell Church, Psychology, Ann Fausto-Sterling, Molecular Cellular Biology, Biochemistry, Richard Fishman, Visual Arts, Peter Gromet, Geological Sciences, Rajiv Vohra, Economics and Michael White, Sociology.
As explained by Professor Savage, the major charge to the task force was, 1) to improve the quality of decisions reached by faculty in its committee deliberations, 2) to enhance engagement of the faculty in governance and 3), to assign responsibility to the faculty more clearly for self-governance and to the administrative advisory boards for shared decision making. He stated that the process was initiated by President Simmons who believes that the faculty could make better decisions more efficiently with an improved committee structure.
The objectives of the task force were to:
The proposed changes would reduce the number of committees to 12 plus nine administrative advisory boards, resulting in 106 slots – about a 50% reduction.
Under the proposed plan, responsibilities of most of the present committees will be redistributed among seven newly established committees. These will be:
Academic Priorities Committee (APC)
Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) (Revised)
Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC)
Nominations Committee for the FEC (NCFEC)
University Curriculum Committee (UCC)
University Resources Committee (URC) (Provost)
The following faculty committees will continue – Honorary Degrees, University Disciplinary Council, Standing Committee on Academic Code, Presidential Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment, John Carter Brown Library Faculty Liaison and the Medical School bodies.
The proposed Administrative Advisory Boards are:
|
Board |
Administrator |
|
Advisory Board on Diversity |
Senior Administrator |
|
Benefits Advisory Board |
VP Administration |
|
Campus Planning & Resources Board |
VPs Administration/Planning |
|
College Council |
Dean of College |
|
Computing Advisory Board |
VP CIS |
|
Faculty Development |
Dean of Faculty |
|
Graduate Council |
Dean of the Graduate School |
|
Library & Info Resources Board |
University Librarian |
|
Research Advisory Board |
VP for Research |
The inter-relationships of these committees and their related subcommittees were displayed by Professor Savage on an organization chart. Taking a question from the floor, Professor Savage stated that TPA would be composed of 12 faculty members and be chaired by a faculty member and have as a member an ex-officio administrator. A sub committee would prepare briefs in case members had to recuse themselves. Addressing concerns expressed by the faculty, Professor Savage stated the task force believes that there should be one committee given oversight for all curricular matters, but that individual sub- committees might be created to deal with undergraduate and graduate curricular matters. He noted that the Provost would make appointments to URC. The task force did not consider making changes to the Medical School faculty governance as there will be a separate process initiated by the interim Medical School dean to review that matter.. Professor Savage also noted that the APC would be composed of half senior administrators and half faculty. The new Curriculum committee will review content of new programs and then will send recommendation to the APC.
During the discussion of the proposal by the faculty a number of concerns emerged. One was the change to limit faculty membership on APC and TPA to full professors. Professor Jill Pipher, Mathematics, expressed her opinion that excluding associate professors was to waste a valuable resource. Professor Lynne Joyrich, Modern Culture and Media, was concerned with the effect of such a change on the diversity of the faculty and felt that lower ranks should be part of every committee. Professor David Cutts, Physics, noted that as the number of positions for junior faculty will be much reduced, and this will be a loss of opportunity for them to participate in governance and to contribute and learn about University governance.
Members of the task force replied that one intention of this change was to free more of the junior faculty from heavy administrative burdens. They were also concerned about the problem engendered by associate professors having to recuse themselves when promotion of a faculty member to full professor was being considered by the TPA. Members of the task force observed that there would be ample slots on sub committees created as a result of the subsuming of present committees into the limited number proposed new committees and that participation on those subcommittees by junior faculty would gain them further experience with the committee process and insight into the governance of the university and could be stepping stones to subsequent appointment or election to higher level committees.
There was also
considerable discussion about the implications of reducing the number of
faculty participating in major committees. Professor Gretchen Schultz, French,
commented that time commitments were the same for faculty at every rank.
Professor Luther Spoehr, Education, observed that reducing faculty committee
membership by 50% can hardly be
described as increasing faculty involvement. This proposed reorganization
raises the perception of lack of fairness. He also questioned the fate of those
committees that deal with quality of life issues. In reply, John Savage reiterated that the actual amount of
committee work that will need to be done is much greater than represented by
the new committees. The number of present committees that will be subsumed will
be great, and this will generate a great number of opportunities for faculty to
participate in subcommittees. Except for the FAC and TPA committees, there are
no restrictions as to rank of committee members contemplated.
A number of faculty questioned how the proposed changes would impact on faculty diversity. The new process seems to minimize the oversight process of new faculty selection. Task force member Professor Anne Fausto-Sterling said that they were not finished working out how this will be accomplished. The President feels that the current process is not working well. The overview function has not worked. While attention has been paid to the proper mechanics of hiring, little time has been spent looking over the needs of the campus and the overall composition of the faculty. Professor Fausto-Sterling agreed that hiring process needs to be coordinated with the Dean of the Faculty, to make sure that there is feedback to faculty hiring committees. Professor Armstrong noted that the President will appoint a diversity officer and a board of faculty members that would help oversee the process. Professor Steve Rabson, East Asian Studies, argued that the new process should not abandon the present detailed specific process of reviewing each dossier closely to assure fairness. Professor Savage agreed and emphasized the need to be proactive in assuring diversity in the hiring process. That’s why the President wants a specific committee and a specific officer to oversee the process. Associate Dean of the Faculty, William Crossgrove, commented that the debate about achieving greater faculty diversity often revolved about the process rather than looking at larger issues about which departments are achieving success and which aren’t. Professor Fausto-Sterling suggested that further improvement might require rewards and punishments as departmental incentives.
Alexander Levitsky, Slavic Languages, asked why two committees were involved in disciplinary matters. Professor Savage responded that one committee is to discipline students the other involved with potential faculty misconduct.
Another issue that received considerable discussion was that of the role and composition of the TPA committee. Professor James Baird, Chemistry, saw two potential problems – the TPA committee reports to Deans of Faculty and of Medicine yet these individuals also sit on the committee. The rationale for this change was prompted because these senior officers should be in the committee discussing the relative merits of faculty under consideration. Continuity might be lost if the Dean of the Faculty does not chair the committee. For a faculty member to chair such a committee is a big administrative task. The Dean of the Faculty has an administrative structure to handle this and could be non-voting. He liked the idea of increasing the size of committee because of the workload. Professor Savage replied that continuity could be provided by someone in the dean’s office who would review the dossier’s to make sure all the “ducks were in a row” before the dossiers were sent to the committee for review. Dean Crossgrove noted that it was a good idea to have recommendations of committee with deans in attendance to go forth to the Provost. Provost Zimmer commented that his main interest was that faculty make judgments on what kind of case could be made regarding hiring or promotion. The Provost should be able to get independent recommendation from faculty rather than only from the Deans of the Faculty and of Medicine.
The faculty discussed whether the new committee structure would make it more difficult for the faculty to raise issues of concern and have them heard and addressed by the administration, as has happened in the past. Professors Armstrong and Savage stated that the FAC will be a powerful committee that can assure that important issues are given a hearing and push for appropriate action from the administration.
There was considerable discussion about the new role for the FEC. Professor Peter Wegner, Computer Science, noted that the role of the FEC in faculty governance had changed, it only reports to faculty and not to the President. He asked whether it would play as important a role in the future. Professor Savage replied that one of its missions is to serve as a liaison between students, faculty and administration. Professor Michael Rosen, Mathematics, stated his belief that the new structure goes too far in eliminating the nomination committee. This will now be handled by FEC, which will create an enormous burden for an already very busy committee. It will impair a process that is presently working quite admirably. Professor Armstrong observed that the FEC has served as a nominating committee in the past when the administration called for the appointment of a search committee. Historically, the committee has been good and independent inasmuch as it has been elected by the faculty. Dean Joan Lusk agreed that FEC could not handle the nomination process. Professor Savage admitted that there was some circularity to the new process and that the task force was not “religious” about having FEC serve as nominating committee.
The question of whether the new committee structure would improve effective faculty-administration decision making was again raised and dissatisfaction was expressed by some of the faculty about how little influence the faculty had in prior administrations. ACUP, in particular, was identified as a committee that dealt with issues of major concern to the faculty but in which the faculty had little impact in the final outcome. The Provost addressed the role of the new University Resources Committee which would replace ACUP, and the relation of the new committee structure to the administration. It is essential he said, that the faculty be brought to the center of allocating resources. With ACUP, there is little to decide over. The faculty should be involved in all issues of resource allocation. We need to have the administration and faculty working well together – this has not always been the case. No matter how enlightened the current administration is, there will always be the potential to fall back to the “dark days”. No structure will guard against all potential problems. You cannot provide total protection against unilateral decision-making, but you can have a structure that balances concerns of the administration and faculty, and he feels that the proposed changes do provide that balance.
Concern was raised that many of the councils and boards that deal with quality of life issues will get lost in the new changes. Professor Steve Foley, English, suggested that the Dean of Student Life be part of the reporting structure. Maybe there should be an elected faculty member in each board. Professor Savage replied that any of these advisory boards could have elected faculty. Jonathan Waage, Bio Med Eco & Evolutionary Biology, asked how many slots are allocated for students in the new proposal. Professor Savage replied that in fact there would be a smaller reduction in the proportion of student representatives on the new committees than for the faculty - 30% reduction in students versus 50% for faculty.
Professor Williaim Beeman, Chair FEC, laid out the following timetable for the rest of the process. A final set of proposals will come from FEC. The faculty will consider the language of the rules changes during the Oct 1st faculty meeting. During the next month there will be opportunities for input by the faculty. The final draft will be available before the November 5th faculty meeting at which time the new proposal will be voted upon. If there are still unresolved issues, the vote will be held back for the December meeting. He noted that this is a work of the faculty not the FEC nor the task force alone. This is something that the full faculty is doing. Professor Fausto-Sterling added that some faculty meetings are long and painful, but ideas can be brought up from the floor. There will be people who don’t like the language proposed, in which case motions can be made from the floor. It has not been decided whether the faculty will vote on the whole package or whether it will be voted on, one provision at a time. Dean Crossgrove suggested that the faculty vote first on the general principles set forth in the report and then on the individual committee proposals.
The student representative thanked the faculty for its invitation to attend the meeting and asked whether they could forward questions.
The Meeting was adjourned 5:53 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Professor Fredric Silverblatt (Medicine)
Secretary of the Faculty Forum