COMMITTEE ON FACULTY GOVERNANCE

ANNUAL REPORT 1998-99

The Committee of Faculty Governance met 27 times during the academic year 1998-99. The meetings included sessions of the Committee of Committees (All College Council, CAFR, CAPT, CEPP, College Benefits, Committee on Faculty Governance, Curriculum Committee, Financial Policy and Planning, and IPC) on February 19^th and May 13^th, convened by CFG in accordance with responsibilities set forth in the Faculty Handbook. They also included meetings with CAPT on April 2^nd and with faculty representatives on the presidential search committee on April 21^st to review the presidential search. The CFG also met with Jamie Studley on February 24^th to discuss faculty governance and administrative structure.

REGULAR BUSINESS. During the academic year, the Committee carried out its many recurrent obligations. First, CFG proposed the 1998-99 Faculty Handbook and the Faculty Meeting in October, 1998 accepted this edition. Second, CFG conducted four rounds of elections, made omnibus appointments, and designated replacements for committee members going on leaves of absence. Third, CFG proposed and the Faculty Meeting on March and May 19^th, 1999 approved motions that revised the function of Athletic Council and changed the membership of Benefits Committee, Committee on Academic Freedom and Rights, and Curriculum Committee. Fourth, CFG received inquiries and responded with advice and suggestions about a variety of matters as it normally does, though the specific topics change from year to year. Thus CFG agreed that there should be no administrative reviews during this transitional year; agreed that on behalf of the faculty Prof. Ralph Ciancio should prepare and read a citation for outgoing President David H. Porter at the Faculty Meeting in December of 1998. In the fall, CFG advised the Dean of the Faculty on the formation of a search committee for head librarian and in the spring on the formation of a task force to study the ways that might bring together CITS and Library functions in useful ways. CFG also advised the Dean of Student Affairs on ways that student affairs staff might learn of faculty priorities, and advised the Dean of the Faculty on matters related to the inauguration of President Jamie Studley in September of 1999. (Return to the top of the document)

PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH. In addition to the normal business, CFG, like the faculty at large, took part in the presidential search process that came to a close in the fall of 1998. The chair of CFG in the fall term, Betty Balevic, maintained communications with the faculty members of the search committee through its liaison, Elaine Rubenstein.

At its meeting on November 4, 1998, CFG determined that it should initiate a review of both the 1986-87 and 1997-98 presidential searches in order to provide historical context and extract lessons that should inform future searches. The Committee reminded the Faculty Meeting in February of 1999 that the members would prepare a report to the trustees during the spring term and share that report with the faculty by the end of the term. The CFG discussed a draft of that report with the faculty members of the Committee of Committees and with other faculty members. Tadahisa Kuroda, Chair of CFG in the spring term, explained at the May 19^th, 1999 Faculty Meeting that the report attempts to provide a faculty perspective; it does not claim to speak for other constituencies that may have an interest in the search process. The CFG did not request a vote by the Faculty Meeting, because CFG intended the report to be informational. He asked that faculty provide comments and suggestions for the final draft by Friday, May 29^th, 1999. In the fall of 1999, CFG will work with CAPT to translate recommendations into suitable Faculty Handbook language. The two committees will bring such measures to the Faculty Meeting for a formal vote. If adopted by the Faculty Meeting, the measures will then require the approval of the Board of Trustees. CFG put a draft of its report on its website. (Return to the top of the document)

CENTRAL CONCERNS. The CFG's spent a good deal of time thinking about faculty governance and its many manifestations. The committee held extensive discussions about the current faculty governance system in theory and practice. The members agreed that faculty held primary responsibilities in certain areas, such as academic freedom, academic standards, educational policy and curriculum, faculty status, and self- governance. They also recognized that the faculty members have major interests and share responsibilities with other constituencies in areas such as institutional planning and financial policy and planning, but that faculty representatives on these committees expressed frustration with their roles at the Committee of Committees meeting of February 19^th, 1999. CFG observes that FPPC, IPC, and Benefits Committee (which reports to FPPC) have functions in areas over which faculty have a significant but not primary responsibility and in which faculty members comprise a minority of the membership.

CFG discussed some very preliminary ideas about simplification and clarification of faculty committees, including reducing the number of faculty members on committees and combining committees with related responsibilities. Consultation with various members of such committees persuaded CFG that this was a direction that we should not pursue. Instead , CFG asked CAFR, CAPT, Curriculum Committee, FPPC, IPC, College Benefits, UWW, CEPP, and EMAC to do a self-assessment around several questions: (1) what is the major function of your committee, (2) what is its membership, (3) what are the committee's major objectives this year, (4) is your committee achieving its goals, (5) is your committee having difficulty in meeting its goals, and, if so, what issues or problems seem to give your committee difficulty, (6) if you were asked to propose changes relative to the goals, membership, major function of your committee for purposes of improving your committee's overall performance, what suggestions might you have?

The subsequent reports indicated that the committees with faculty majorities and faculty chairs are functioning satisfactorily. IPC, FPPC, and Benefits have had difficulties in the past but appear to be doing better now, though issues remain. The Committee of Committees supported the idea of having CFG do an in-depth study next academic year on this subject and coming back to the Faculty with a recommendation about how these committees might be made more effective and where they should be situated, under Faculty Governance or College Governance. In the interim, CFG proposed a preamble to Part Two Faculty Governance of the Faculty Handbook that explains the thinking behind the committee structure now in place. The Faculty Meeting on May 19^th, 1998 accepted this proposal.

In spite of reports indicating that committees are busy and doing their work in a creditable manner, CFG feels there are underlying concerns about the effectiveness of faculty governance. CFG believes that over the past 15 years or so, the interpretation of existing standards and then the adoption of new standards for continued service have given less attention to community service. The elimination of a merit pay system in favor of across-the-board increases also diminished the recognition that might have gone to service. The demands on faculty time throughout the calendar year have made it more difficult, even for those so inclined, to serve on committees in a pro-active fashion. Yet, the demands placed on committees and task forces--reconfiguration, assessment, new curriculum, presidential searches, personnel matters, and the like--are as great or greater than before. Within this larger, structural context, CFG believes that there are many questions yet to be answered: do issues of interest to faculty fall between the cracks, is there sufficient coordination of work among committees, does the faculty own its own governance system, does faculty service make a difference, does the Faculty Meeting work well.

The CFG's understanding of the Task Force on Faculty Governance Report of 1988 and of past focus group discussions and survey responses makes clear that there are a number of issues of concern to the Committee and to members of the faculty. In the fall, CFG notified college publications that SCAN referred to Faculty Meetings incorrectly as Faculty and Staff Meetings, and SCAN by October 15^th SCAN agreed to change this practice. CFG also notified the Office of the Dean of the Faculty that it was concerned about the number of non-faculty members who are routinely included in the faculty-list on email. CFG sees a number of issues related to Faculty Meetings that it must address in the fall: (1) the number of non-faculty who attend Faculty Meetings, (2) the amount of time consumed by announcements, (3) the lack of opportunities to introduce subjects of concern to the faculty that transcend routine agenda items, (4) continuing discussion about who should preside at faculty meetings. In May, CFG issued an email request for responses from faculty members about the presiding officer issue.

CFG believes that it can play an important role in promoting faculty dialogue on these issues and providing information to the administration and the board of trustees about faculty interests and concerns. In the meeting with the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees on May 5^th, 1999, Tadahisa Kuroda pointed out that CFG occupies a unique position because membership is broadly open to faculty of differing status and departments and because CFG has broad responsibilities in areas of faculty governance and faculty relations with the administration. CFG is one of only three committees comprised solely of faculty members--the others are CAPT and CAFR (when dealing with faculty issues); yet it does not have the opportunity to meet with the trustees. He informed the trustees that CFG will ask formally for meeting with the appropriate board committee next year. (Return to the top of the document)

AGENDA FOR 1999-2000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The CFG acknowledges with pleasure the cooperation of faculty members of other committees--particularly CAPT, the Presidential Search Committee, CAFR, and the Committee of Committees. CFG has also received substantial help from numerous individual faculty members who have responded to requests for assistance in framing motions brought to the Faculty Meeting and in preparation of the report on presidential searches. The CFG also gratefully acknowledges the invaluable assistance of Susan Blair and Chrisana McGill in the Office of the Dean of the Faculty. Finally, the continuing members of CFG thank Gary McClure and Vasantha Narasimhan, whose terms end, for their many contributions to the work of the committee this year. (Return to the top of the document)

Fall Term 1998

Spring Term 1999

1999-2000

Betty Balevic, Chair Tadahisa Kuroda K. Gary McClure Vasantha Narasimhan Mehmet Odekon Mary Z. Stange

Jacqueline Azzarto Tadahisa Kuroda, Chair K. Gary McClure Vasantha Narasimhan Mehmet Odekon Mary Z. Stange

Jacqueline Azzarto 2002 Betty Balevic 2000 Richard Hihn 2002 Tadahisa Kuroda 2001 Mehmet Odekon 2001 Mary Z. Stange 2000

(Return to the top of the document)