GOVERNANCE TASKFORCE

MINUTES, JUNE 24, 2004, 12:00-1:30

AGENDA: General discussion of issues and models of governance with Professor John Ambler (Political Science)

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

Guest: John Ambler

In the course of a wide-ranging discussion, Ambler and the taskforce discussed the following matters (organized by theme rather than order of discussion):

1. History and rationale for current system of governance at Rice: Ambler described the conditions and events leading to the changes in faculty governance of 1971. He pointed out that the crisis connected with the appointment of Masterson as president precipitated the change, insofar as it revealed that Deans and other administrators did not represent the faculty's voice. The result was a plenary body consisting of all faculty, with a representative body (the Faculty Council) that dealt directly with the administration.

2. Changes in faculty attitudes toward governance since 1971: The committee discussed whether and how faculty had developed different attitudes toward governance since 1971óand in particular their increasing unwillingness to spend significant amount of time on committees. The following causes of this change were enumerated:

• The profession has changed significantly over the past decades: more publications, greater professional participation in conferences and journals, and more dedication to graduate education are being demanded of professors, so that less time can be devoted to issues such as governance.
• Rice University has also changed, and the greater emphasis on graduate education and research has taken its toll on professors' ability to perform university service.
• There are few if any rewards for governance work.
• The business of the university itself has grown more complex and time-consuming, and the naming of numerous vice presidents has helped to concentrate authority.
• There may be less attachment to the university as an organization today, related to the changes listed aboveóand to professors' orientation toward the profession as a whole, part of Rice's development into a national university.

3. The centrality of curricular matters to our discussion: Ambler stressed the importance of curricular matters to our discussion. At present, the Faculty, Faculty Council, Curriculum Committee, and other entities have quite a lot of authority, reaching even into departmental degree requirements at the graduate level. Should the authority for making final decisions on curriculum continue to rest with a faculty body, whether the assembled faculty or their representatives? Should it return to schools, and if so, how would their votes be structured in light of the division of arts and sciences into four schools? And what role should the faculty have in determining the curriculum of the professional schools?

4. Ways the existing system could work better: Solutions to the problems facing Rice's system of faculty and shared governance need not involve a new faculty senate system, Ambler stressed.

• Faculty Council could consult with the administration or Board about appointing a faculty committee that could provide input into decisions on budgetary and academic priorities.
• The Faculty and Faculty Council could seek to have the speaker of Faculty Council elected directly by the faculty, for a three-year term (incoming speaker, speaker, former speaker) to ensure continuity and to foment greater faculty discussion of governance.
• Existing committees could be streamlined or in some cases eliminated: wasted time is a cause of faculty apathy about governance.

5. Issues related to committees:

• At present, the Committee on Committees makes recommendations to standing committees, and the President then appoints a committee. The Faculty has no right to appoint the members of standing committees. It could be that the Faculty Council should have the right to veto presidential appointees, or that a "double veto" system should be implemented, in which both president and Faculty Council have the right to reject appointees suggested by the other.
• Promotion and Tenure is currently composed of members of Faculty/University Council, who are thereby terribly overburdened by committee work (without compensation). It could be that Promotion and Tenure should be separated from the body representing the faculty.

6. Issues of representation: Some possible problems related to a senate system came up in the discussion, including the following.

• Would direct departmental representation discourage discussion of the general interest of the university and open up instead "turf battles" among "factious interests" (James Madison)? It was pointed out that as faculty has more discussion of issues of space and budget, such discussions become more rather than less probable.
• One solution to the problem would involve mixed representation: some election by departments balanced by other, at-large positions.
• If the university shifts to government by representative body, then it will have to consider the place of non-tenured employeesómany of whom currently have the right to vote in faculty meetings.

7. The next step: The taskforce and Ambler agreed that the taskforce should seek to bring faculty, provost, and incoming president into discussion around these issues. We will seek to have a meeting with the provost in the coming weeks to talk in general about issues related to governance.

The members of the taskforce thanked Ambler for his help in our discussion, and expressed their interest in his returning for follow-up discussions in the future.