Task Force on Faculty & Shared Governance
Task Force Bulletin Board

ISSUES UNDER DISCUSSION

Promotion & Tenure Committee (Question 1)
Faculty Senate Model (Question 2)
Faculty Senate Model (Question 3)
Standing Committees (Question 4)
Faculty Council Reform (Question 5)
Speaker of the Faculty Council of Faculty Senate (Question 6)
Electronic Voting (Question 7)

Faculty Council Reform

As another option, the Task Force has been giving thought to reforming Faculty Council rather than calling for a new Faculty Senate. Reforms would aim at increasing the authority, effectiveness, and representation of Faculty Council. Some measures considered include the following:

• to increase the number of representatives on Faculty Council to 18;
• to reduce terms of service to three years, with a term limit of six years;
• to improve (or in some cases create) information flows between Faculty Council and standing committees, requiring heads of committees to report to the Faculty Council;
• to increase the range of tasks over which the Faculty Council, as the elected representatives of the Faculty, represent the voice of the Faculty.

Question 5: Is the Faculty Council in need of reform, and if so what do you think of the Task Force's suggestions for reform?

POSTED FACULTY COMMENTS

(Posted according to date received)

Date: 09/03/2004 From: Jane Chane <jchance@rice.edu>

The problem with all the plans listed is that all faculty ought to have the opportunity to participate in curriculum discussions and other matters that concern them (admissions standards, teaching, students, and the like). We don't need more administrative appointing of so-called representative faculty (and the same people over and over again), nor do we need a closed body of elected faculty, with no opportunity for real debate by non-elected faculty.

The reason faculty don't come to meetings and don't vote is because we don't believe the administration really wants faculty governance at this university. If it did, it would insist on chairs and other officials being elected by their constituents. This is a top down university, folks. Note items on the agenda yesterday: reports, reports, reports. No debate allowed. Questions only. Of course, many of us thought the new president would deliver an Address (rather than an address) and we wanted to hear that, I'm sure.

Date: September 14, 2004 by Moshe Vardi <vardi@cs.rice.edu>

These are good suggestions, but they won't fix the main problem, which is the "direct democracy" model.

Date: September 17, 2004 by Meredith Skura <skura@rice.edu>

I prefer the Faculty Senate option but if we keep the Faculty Council these changes would definitely improve it.

Date: September 22, 2004 by Gale Stokes <gstokes@rice.edu>

The Faculty Council system, which includes taking all issues finally to the faculty, definitely is in need of reform.   However, I do not favor the suggestions made here, but instead believe a senate would be the best solution.   The suggestions ("improve information flows;" "increase range of tasks") seem like benign wishful thinking to me.   A full change is needed.

Submit your own comments to this question for the public bulletin-board

---