GOVERNANCE TASK FORCE

MINUTES, SEPT. 7, 2004

Present: Drs. Zeff, Braam, Crowell, Scott, Long, and Dr. Gil Whitaker, Dean of the Jones School of Management

Dr. Zeff introduced several of the issues we have been discussing, including the Faculty Senate model, the separation of P&T from Faculty and University Council, and the question of whether there should be a university-wide P&T committee, or whether those issues should be dealt with school by school.

Dr. Whitaker began by highlighting the importance of building trust between the faculty and the President and Provost, saying that a transition period such as the present was a good time to address this issues.

He also advised devolving some issues to the schools, the ≥locations of more detailed knowledge.≤ Drawing on some of his experiences as Provost at the University of Michigan, he said that there, each school had an elected governance committee, whose members spoke for the school on promotion and tenure. These bodies also head issues from faculty (there were mechanisms for doing this in private) so they could raise these issues without identifying the concerned faculty member. Dr. Whitaker raised the question about doing something similar at Rice such that certain issues ≠ e.g. school-wide curriculum ≠ could be dealt with by those most closely concerned and most informed.

Dr. Whitaker said that at Michigan, there was a university-wide faculty senate that discussed issues affecting the whole university. A smaller body drawn from the senate (the SACUA) with 8-10 members, met weekly to deal with issues such as benefits and academic freedom.

There was no university-wide promotion and tenure committee, but the Provost read all files (120-140 per year). Tenure and promotion folders moved from the department to the executive committee of each school, and the dean of that school would also take a position.

From this experience, he had drawn two lessons: First, that decisions should be made where knowledge is best, and second that trust is crucial, and that the specific forms faculty governance takes, as such, are less crucial.

In discussion, Dean Whitaker made several other points:

He felt that at Rice, issues that could be settled at the level of the schools appear here in front of the whole faculty, where sometimes strong convictions prevail over knowledge.

The small SACUA at Michigan seemed very effective, perhaps more so than Faculty Council here. The groups in each school were particularly effective, because they were both knowledgeable and concerned.

At Michigan, an elected faculty member served as chair of the Faculty Senate. The provost routinely attended those meetings, and the president did so occasionally. In this structure, the Senate was less strong than the SACUA or the elected governance committees of each school.

Dean Whitaker suggested budgeting secretarial help for committee reports.

When asked about dealing with differences between divisions, Dean Whitaker suggested a body of faculty selected by the Provost as advisors. He also said that in his opinion, the Deans at Rice have too little power, i.e. too little discretion, funding, and knowledge of the budget.

A possibility for a campus-wide P&T committee would be for faculty to elect, then for President and Provost to choose from that slate. He also suggested only changing the committee by 1/3 each year to keep continuity.

Under the model of strong committees at each school determining issues such as P&T, how would a university-wide Senate attract either issues or involved faculty? Whitaker suggested that one would need to determine which issues are university-wide, and which should be located in the schools.

In relation to how to encourage faculty involvement, Whitaker said that younger people should be left to do their work, and that committee charges are crucial, since to involve faculty they need to see themselves as doing important work.

We also discussed how to structure our report to the Faculty Council, stressing the need to present options for the consideration of the faculty.

Dean Whitaker concluded by again stressing building trust over the need to follow any particular structure.