GOVERNANCE TASKFORCE

MINUTES, JUNE 17, 2004, 12:00-1:15

 

AGENDA

1. FACULTY COUNCIL LIAISON

2. PROCEDURE FOR DISCUSSING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT COMMITTEES

3. REPORT ON COMMITTEES

4. GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS AT OTHER SCHOOLS

5. GENERAL ISSUES OF FACULTY AND SHARED GOVERNANCE AT RICE

 

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

 

  1. FACULTY COUNCIL LIAISON: Huffer reported slow progress on appointing a Faculty Council liaison to the Taskforce. She will continue to play a role until such an appointment occurs.

 

  1. PROCEDURE FOR DISCUSSING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT COMMITTEES: The Taskforce agreed
    1. to examine all the standing and other important committees at the University internally;
    2. to come to some conclusions about the general characteristics of committees at Rice;
    3. to identify problems committees face on a systemic level;
    4. and to make recommendations about specific committees on the basis of this analysis.

 

  1. REPORT ON COMMITTEES: Braam suggested tabling an initial discussion of reports on Affirmative Action, Benefits, Teaching, ROTC, Admissions, and Handbook Committees until we have reports available for all committees. The Taskforce agreed, and the item was tabled.

 

  1. GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS AT OTHER SCHOOLS: Grandy, Scott, and Caldwell all made brief reports on governance systems at other schools, including Tulane, Washington University, Stanford, and the University of Houston. These reports fed into the discussion that followed.

 

  1. GENERAL ISSUES OF FACULTY AND SHARED GOVERNANCE AT RICE: A lengthy discussion ensued about what issues related to faculty and shared governance Rice faces and how it can start to resolve those issues. The committee resolved to consider the following general issues and to start thinking about concrete models for governance at Rice:
    1. Faculty Senate, University Senate, or Governance by Committee? Should Rice faculty be represented by way of a Faculty Senate, in which the faculty or its faculty representatives run their own meetings without representatives from other constituencies (administration, staff, students), by a University Senate that combines faculty and other representatives (e.g. administration), or by some less formal model involving multiple committees with elected faculty representatives (Brown model)?
    2. Faculty representation by plenary or by elected representatives? Should Rice faculty continue to vote as the assembled faculty or should they elect representatives to vote on important issues when they come up? If the faculty votes as assembled faculty in plenary session, should they have the right to vote on all important issues, including curriculum, calendar, and so on? Is there a way to combine some kind of representative system with a limited but still present role for the assembled faculty?
    3. Who should name committees? What is the procedure for putting faculty on standing and other important committees?
    4. Does the faculty have adequate information to play a constructive role in faculty governance?
    5. Who should set the agenda for faculty meetings and chair the meetings?
    6. How might continuity of faculty leadership be best promoted?
    7. How are important committees such as P&T composed? Should such committees include presidential appointees? Should they be chaired by the provost?

 

  1. OTHER BUSINESS
    1. It was suggested that the Taskforce invite President Leebron, deans, as well as notable faculty members to future meetings to discuss in general the role and function of faculty and shared governance.
    2. Braam and Long agreed to meet next week to pull together the numerous reports on committees.
    3. The Taskforce agreed that it would like to involve John Ambler at an early point in its deliberations.