GOVERNANCE TASKFORCE
MINUTES, Sept. 8, 2004
AGENDA
MEETING WITH PROVOST GENE LEVY
Attending: Braam, Cooper, Grandy, Long, Scott, Zeff, Crowell (FC liaison)
Provost Levy shared his views on the following questions that are before the Task Force:
On the question of Divisional P&T Committees compared to the current system of a University wide P&T Committee: At Rice the single committee provides two advantages.
2. It provides a locus where the University is conceptualized as a single entity.
Even at Arizona, which is approximately ten times larger than Rice, there was a single P&T committee and it served a valuable function.
Separating P&T from Faculty Council (or its replacement if we make changes) is highly desirable.
The current system of a largely elected P&T Committee is working ok, but the Provost would prefer a fully (or perhaps mostly) appointed committee, largely because the dominance of the elected members creates a randomness that often leads to large disciplinary and/or gender-diversity imbalances, which are hard to manage if the provost/president have only two appointive positions at play. Absolutely, if we stay with
elections, we should have term limits.
One administrative innovation in recent years is that all mandatory promotion cases must be completely documented and forwarded through deans and P&T. In the past, departments could simply deny promotion and the case could stop at the dean level. This new policy is a reflection of the expectation that as a community of scholars there will be shared standards of excellence and equity.
Having the President of the University chair faculty meetings is not ideal since the purpose of faculty meetings is to facilitate dialogue between the faculty, or their leaders, and the administration on complex issues that the university must face.
The Provost reported that in his opinion faculty governance at Rice is ìbrokenî. Our implicit model of governance based on New England town meetings is flawed. We have over 500 faculty members; if most of the faculty members attended the meeting the numbers would be unmanageable, and if a small percentage attends the result is suspect as ìunrepresentativeî. Most faculty do not currently attend faculty meetings unless there is a motion on the agenda that they wish to vote against. This produces the perception that attendance is small, unrepresentative and unproductive.
A suitably constituted Faculty Senate would present a preferable form of faculty governance. In his recommended form of government the President and Provost would regularly make reports to the Faculty Council/Senate.
The Provost would favor a system that elected representatives of specific constituencies. We might identify groups of 30-40 faculty each of whom would elect a representative. The election of the representatives should take place in live meetings with all interested parties present. The current system of elections for faculty council encourages reelection of the same persons because of name recognition; an election system based on constituencies would produce more appropriate candidates. Each constituency should specifically be asked to send forward the person that they believe can and will best represent their views in the context of the larger interests of the university, which should be their predominant priority. Term limits should be imposed.
The Provost opposes electronic voting or general paper ballot voting because the processes of debate and discussion are invaluable and would be difficult or impossible to replicate in alternative systems. The issue is how to structure discussion to present issues to the faculty and then to elicit deliberative and thoughtful responses.
On the issue of creating and appointing committees, where appropriate both the administration and the faculty should be empowered to create committees.
At the most general level, the Provost sees the governance structure as involving three constituenciesóthe faculty, the University leadership (i.e. provost and president) and the Board. How these groups should interact is a matter for thought and discussion.
After an hour the Provost had to leave to attend another meeting. The Task Force thanked him for his input and the Provost volunteered to return for more discussion at a later date.
After the Provost left, the committee members briefly discussed plans for future meetings. The next meeting is scheduled for 11 am Tuesday Sept 14.