GOVERNANCE TASKFORCE

MINUTES, JULY 22, 2004

AGENDA

1. Committee on Committees

2. Promotion and Tenure

3. Structures of Faculty Governance: Working Out Several Models

4. Topics for Next Meeting

Attending: Braam, Caldwell, Cooper, Grandy, Zeff, Crowell (FC liaison)

1. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

The Taskforce discussed the way the Committee on Committees functions, based on reports by Patricia Rieff, recommendation lists, and the experiences of Braam and Crowell on that committee. The problem of continuity was stressed: if a person becomes chair of the Committee on Committees with limited prior experience, that committee loses its effectiveness. The Taskforce discussed the following possible measures to improve the Committee on Committees:

• The Committee on Committees should not recommend appointment of anyone to chair of a committee for more than three years, without the approval of the Faculty Council (or whatever faculty executive body replaces Faculty Council).
• The Committee on Committees should only recommend someone to be chair of a committee if that person has previous experience with that committee, unless the Faculty Council (or whatever faculty executive body replaces Faculty Council) approves.

It was noted that these rules run up against the fact that Committee on Committees recommends committee appointments, and the President actually executes those recommendations. It was suggested that a distinction be made between strictly faculty committees and university committees.

The Taskforce furthermore discussed how to streamline the process of drawing up committee recommendations, perhaps by giving greater role to the current chair of a committee and getting input from the full Faculty Senate or Faculty Council.

2. PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE

The Taskforce generally agreed that Promotion and Tenure is a difficult, important, and time-consuming committee, and should therefore be separated from the executive body of the faculty (Faculty/University Council), rather than identified with it. How to choose P&T depends on which model of faculty governance is chosen.

3. STRUCTURES OF FACULTY GOVERNANCE: WORKING OUT SEVERAL MODELS

The Taskforce continued its discussion from the previous meeting, and began to give more content to three proposals for change. Members of the Taskforce have agreed to begin drafting frameworks of governance systems, so that we have a better idea of how changes in one area will affect another: Zeff will work on a Faculty Senate model, Grandy will work on a model that makes a series of smaller reforms and retains the Faculty/University Council system currently in place.

The following issues arose regarding each model (and the Taskforce anticipates a great number of additional issues as well):

1. Faculty Senate model: according to this system, faculty would elect a large (35-50 member) Senate, which would then take important votes in the name of the faculty. From this Senate would be elected a faculty executive, headed by a Speaker; the Speaker might be elected for a three year term in a direct faculty election (serving first year as Incoming Speaker, second as Speaker, third as Outgoing Speaker and perhaps head of Committee on Committees).
1. How would the Senate elections take place? Would individual Departments vote representatives? How would elections in the professional schools take place? Should there be special positions reserved for e.g. assistant professors, lecturers, and research scholars? Indeed, what voting rights would lecturers and research scholars, who in some cases have voting rights under the current system, have in a senate system?
2. Would the Faculty reserve its right to vote as a whole on matters it deemed important? Would it express its right through a petition drawing a certain percentage of eligible voters and presented to the Faculty Senate?
3. How would P&T be formed? Out of the members of the Senate?
4. How would the Committee on Committees be formed?
5. If a representative is unable to attend a meeting, should he or she be allowed to send a proxy?

2. Reforms of Existing Model: the system of Faculty/University Council, with which faculty members are already familiar, would be retained, but reformed in some basic ways. The following issues came up:
1. Would the Speaker be elected for a three-year term, to ensure continuity?
2. How would P&T be formed, if separated out from the executive body of the Faculty?
3. What measures would be taken to ensure more efficient work by the Committee on Committees?
4. Should Faculty Council receive direct reports from standing committees? This is presumably something that can be done immediately, without any reform.
5. Should the President continue to chair the meeting of the general faculty?

3. Brown Model: The members of the Taskforce discussed a model that would involve direct election of faculty members of major committees responsible to the President, without a strong central faculty executive body. This model is the most radically different from what Rice currently has. Taskforce members questioned whether it would fit with the culture at Rice, where faculty tend to be less directly involved with governance. There was no strong support for this model.

4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION NEXT TIME:

a. The Taskforce hopes that it have some written drafts of at least two proposals to reform faculty governance, which it can begin to discuss next time.

b. Already next time, the Taskforce hopes that it will be able to start to meet with Deans and Provost to discuss the items on its agenda.

c. The Taskforce hopes to begin discussing Cooper's document on committees.