GOVERNANCE TASKFORCE
MINUTES, August 24, 2004, 11:00-11:30
AGENDA: Finalize text for our bulletin board
Attending: Caldwell, Cooper, Grandy, Long, Zeff, Crowell (FC liaison)
The Task Force received notice that Alan Levander has resigned from the Task Force.
The Task Force decided to disseminate our description of issues and questions to the Faculty in the following way:
1. First, the website has to be completed, giving Faculty members the chance to respond.
2. Second, the document should be sent out via email, with a link to the webpage, to all faculty members (tenure-track as well as non-tenure-track).
3. Third, Co-Chair Zeff will announce the set of issues and the website at the Faculty Meeting on Sept. 2.
The Task Force agreed upon the following text for the bulletin board:
TASK FORCE BULLETIN BOARD
ISSUES UNDER DISCUSSION
In
late spring 2004, the Faculty Council created a Task Force on Governance with
the following charge: Examine the
structure, policies, and procedures of faculty and shared governance at Rice.
In order to improve faculty and shared governance, propose changes that will
enhance the quality, consistency, and timeliness of decisions, simplify and
strengthen the committee structure, and empower faculty.
The Task Force has been exploring alternative ìfaculty governance modelsî to the one currently used at Rice. Issues ranging from the performance of the assembled faculty as a decision-making body to the effectiveness of Faculty Council itself have prompted this discussion. (A listing of issues drawn up by Faculty Council is available here.) We have examined the models used at a sample of comparable universities and have begun to conduct a series of meetings with the deans, the Provost and the President in order to benefit from their experience and opinions.
At this stage, it would be
helpful to receive comments from the faculty as a whole on two new options we
are considering. One option is to move toward a representative faculty
assembly, known as a Faculty Senate at quite a few universities, which would
exercise some of the authority now vested in the faculty as a whole. Another
option is to improve Riceís Faculty Council, while retaining plenary meetings
of the full faculty.
Common to both of these options is a proposed disengagement of the Universityís Promotion and Tenure Committee from the election or appointment to the Senate or the Council. One of the obstacles to attracting good candidates for Faculty Council and University Council in past years, we believe, has been the linkage between such membership and service on this busy committee.
Question 1: Do you think that membership on the Universityís Promotion and Tenure Committee should be chosen separately from election or appointment to positions of faculty governance?
Faculty Senate model
As one option, the Task Force has been considering a Faculty Senate model. The model calls for a Senate of approximately 40 to 50 tenured and tenure-track faculty to be elected for staggered two- or three-year terms by their respective Schools. The meetings of the Senate would be open to the University community. The Chair of the Faculty Senate would be either the President or the Faculty Speaker, who would be elected by the Senate or by the full faculty. The President and Provost would be ex officio members of the Senate. Once each year, the Senate would invite the President to deliver a ìState of the Universityî address to the Senate.
In addition to Faculty Senate meetings, there would be one or two plenary meetings of the faculty in the winter and spring in order to approve candidates for graduation and consider other issues deemed relevant by the Faculty Senate.
Question 2. In a Faculty Senate, do you favor the President or the Faculty Speaker as the Chair?
The Faculty Senateís agenda would be set by an Executive Committee chosen by Faculty Senate. It would be chaired by the President or the Faculty Speaker. If the latter, the Speaker would confer in advance with the President and Provost on the agenda proposals.
One advantage of the Faculty Senate model is that it would overcome the perceived unrepresentativeness of plenary faculty meetings. A second advantage is that senators, being elected by their school, would feel more responsibility in carrying out their duties. Thirdly, senators would have more influence than current Faculty Council members since Senate votes would decide important matters.
Question 3. What is your opinion of the principle of a Faculty Senate model?
Committees dealing primarily with faculty issues (e.g., Undergraduate Curriculum, Library, Examinations and Standing) would be named by the Senate and would be expected to report to the Senate. Committees dealing primarily with University issues (e.g., Admissions, Athletics) would be appointed by the President, after consulting with the Faculty Senate, and would be expected to report to the President. Currently, all committees are appointed by the President after seeking advice from the Faculty Councilís Committee on Committees, but there has been a haphazard process of holding meetings, filing reports, and reviewing the performance of the committees. Committee chairs should have served previously on the committee, and the term of the chair should be limited.
Question 4. Does this sound like a reasonable approach to appointing committees?
Faculty Council Reform
As another option, the Task Force has been giving thought to reforming Faculty Council rather than calling for a new Faculty Senate. Reforms would aim at increasing the authority, effectiveness, and representation of Faculty Council. Some measures considered include the following:
Question 5: Is the Faculty Council in need of reform, and if so what do you think of the Task Forceís suggestions for reform?
The Speaker provides leadership for the representatives of the Faculty in whatever system we haveóthe current Faculty Council, a reformed Faculty Council, or a new Faculty Senate. The Task Force is considering a recommendation that the Speaker be elected to a three-year term, serving as Deputy Speaker in the first year, Speaker in the second, and head of Committee on Committees in the third year. A three-year term would provide for more continuity in faculty governance.
Question 6: Do you support electing the Speaker to a three-year term? If so, should the Speaker be elected by the faculty directly or by the representatives of the faculty?
The assembled Faculty at present votes on important matters, including curriculum and calendar. One alternative to this system would involve voting by the entire faculty on important matters, either electronically or by paper ballots. Faculty would not need to attend the faculty meetings to make their voices heardówhich would greatly relieve those with tight schedules, and in particular those with childcare responsibilities. Opportunity for discussion would be provided electronically, and perhaps in open meetings that could be taped and made available to those who could not attend.
Question 7: Would the implementation of electronic or paper voting improve governance by ensuring adequate voice to all? Do you have suggestions for mechanisms of informing those faculty who do not attend faculty meetings of the issues?