Individual faculty members serve on university-level committees as a way to provide faculty input into the decisions and processes of the University. Any effort at reforming faculty governance should include a thorough examination of the committee system with an eye toward improving the effectiveness of both the individual committees and the overall committee system.
Riceıs current committee system includes both a large set of permanent (perennial?) committees and a smaller group of special or ad-hoc committees. The permanent committees include standing committees, subcommittees of the University Council and of the Faculty Council, and advisory committees. Special committees are convened on a variety of topics; the recent Athletic Review Committee and the 1996 Special Committee on Safety are examples.
Experience with the current set of committees is decidedly mixed. The Taskforce on Faculty and Shared Governance conducted a review of committees and gathered information on more than twenty of them. The committees vary widely in their effectiveness and their impact on University policies, procedures, and activities. However, some general trends are clear:
· Contact between committees and the Faculty Council is sporadic at best. Almost all committee charges specify that the committee must report to the University Council. In practice, those reports are rare.
· Committee chairs exert a strong influence over the committeeıs direction and its effectiveness. The duration of a chairıs term appears to vary widely. Adopting consistent guidelines for committee chairs might improve the situation.
· The current system provides little incentive for faculty members to function as effective committee chairs and minimal management oversight to check on their performance. The disconnect between service and the reward structure further discourages service.
To compound matters, the relationship between the current committee structure and the Universityıs own functional organization is tenuous, at best. Some committees have no obvious connection to the University administration; many administrative offices have no connection to a faculty committee for example, no standing committee provides faculty input on matters related to information technology, resource development, or public affairs, despite the growing role of all three in the faculty's day-to-day life.
This report makes a number of specific recommendations to improve both the structure and the function of Riceıs standing and special committees.
Specific Recommendations
1. The Committee on Committees of the Faculty Council should develop a written rationale to explain when a committee (either a standing committee or a special committee) is needed. The current system appears to create standing committees:
a. to deal with long-term policy issues that affect education and research at Rice;
b. to administer Riceıs academic rules, to discharge administrative responsibilities, and to deal with grievances; and
c. to monitor the implementation of policies that the faculty deem important.
The rationale should clearly differentiate between a
standing committee and a special committee.
The rationale must also allow for advisory committees that exist outside the faculty governance structure, such as the Patent Review Committee (appointed by the President and reporting to the Office of Technology Transfer), the Residential Colleges Maintenance Advisory Committee (reporting to the head of Food and Housing), and the IT Security Committee (reporting to the Vice-president for Information Technology).
2. Faculty Council should develop guidelines for service as a committee chair. These guidelines may differ somewhat from one committee to another, depending on the nature of the committee. But the guidelines should address the following issues:
a. Continuity should be encouraged by appointing chairs to two- or three-year terms. Ideally, a committee chair would have prior service on the committee.
b. At the same time, consecutive term limits, either of one or two terms, should be imposed to keep single individuals from dominating committees over long periods.
3. Faculty Council should institute procedures that increase committee accountability. For example:
a. Faculty
Council should require each committee chair to attend Faculty Council meetings
at least once a year to present a written report on committee goals,
recommendations, and accomplishments.
b. Faculty
Council may require minutes be taken in certain committees.
4. The Committee on Committees should provide a written evaluation of each committee chairıs service, filing the report with the relevant Dean for consideration in annual salary reviews. The Committee on Committees should review committee charges on a rotating basis at least every five years. It should furthermore review the organization chart of the institution, and take steps to align the committee structure with the long term operational and policy issues that would benefit from effective faculty input. When the Committee on Committees suggests an important change in committee charge and functioning, the matter should come before the Faculty Council.
The Taskforce will make specific committee-by-committee recommendations in a private communication with the Faculty Council.
5. Faculty Council should review, with the President, the mechanism for recommending and appointing faculty members to committees. To give the recommendations of the Committee on Committees more weight, Faculty Council might pursue a double-veto system in some cases, wherein the President and the Speaker of the Faculty each have the right to veto appointments to Standing Committees and Special Committees.
6. Faculty Council should consider a provision that makes key administration officials voting members of standing committees related to the function of their offices. Active participation by key administrators would increase both interaction between the faculty and administrative officials and the likelihood that faculty input reached appropriate offices in a timely fashion.
Standing Committees (From Riceıs Various Web sites)
Committee on Admissions and Student Financial Aid
Committee on Affirmative Action
Committee of the College Masters
Committee on Computers (listed in handbook, not on web site, probably defunct)
Committee on Education
Committee on Environmental Health and Safety
Committee on Examinations and Standing
Committee on Faculty and Staff Benefits
Committee on Faculty Handbook
Committee on the Library
Committee on Parking
Committee on Public Lectures (³Presidentıs Lectures²)
Committee on Salary Equity
Committee on Scholarships and Awards
Committee on Security
Committee on Teaching
Committee on the Undergraduate Curriculum
Faculty Council
Graduate Council
Research Council
Rice University Athletics Committee
Rice University Marshals Committee
ROTC Committee
University Council
Committees of the University
Council and the Faculty Council
The University Policy on Promotion and Tenure (201-01) creates the Promotion and Tenure Committee and defines its membership as the tenured faculty members of the University Council.
The Faculty Council By-laws create four additional committees:
The Faculty Council has the power to appoint additional committees. According to the Faculty Handbook, it routinely appoints a Committee on Athletics and a Policy Committee.
Biosafety Committee
Campus Construction Council
Committee on the Digital Environment at Rice
IT Security Committee
Patent Committee
Presidentıs Council on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Campus Climate
Presidentıs Council on Minority Affairs
Residential Colleges Management Advisory Committee
Staff Advisory Committee
Student Center Advisory Committee