SKIDMORE COLLEGE

WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED. The CFG notes that the committee included in its annual report for 1998-1999 an agenda of what it hoped to accomplish this year. In terms of that agenda, the CFG performed its assigned, routine business: it proposed a new edition of the Faculty Handbook for 1999-2000 at the September Faculty Meeting that the October Faculty Meeting adopted; it conducted four rounds of elections, made omnibus appointments, and designated sabbatical replacements for faculty members of committees who are going on leaves of absence.

The CFG also examined and implemented electronic balloting for elections for the spring term of 2000 and found that the elimination of the old "nominating ballot" stage and computerized balloting worked well and saved committee members many hours of labor. The committee established a CFG website with the CFG operating code, schedule of elections, annual report; operating codes and annual reports of faculty committees without their own websites; links to homepages of faculty committees with their own sites; and basic documents, including the Report of the Task Force on Faculty Governance, March 14, 1988 and the CFG Report on Presidential Searches.

Last year the CFG also promised to continue its work to review the structure and procedures of the monthly Faculty Meeting. President Jamie Studley worked in harmony with CFG to make Faculty Meetings in the fall term much more flexible than they had been in the past by shifting agenda order, dispensing with the president's report and resorting to a later circulation of a written report, and using the committee of the whole as the occasion warranted. In addition, CFG held a very informative meeting with John Thomas on parliamentary procedure as a first step toward helping faculty become familiar with orderly ways to advance faculty business through the government structure. CFG will request that Dean John Berman distribute copies of Robert's Rules to chairs of committees in the fall, and will work to create an operating code for Faculty Meetings that should highlight various methods for allowing faculty to discuss issues of concern to them in a timely and orderly fashion. The CFG made a concerted effort to present relevant information regarding business it brought to the Faculty Meetings via email to faculty-list at least 48 hours in advance of those meetings. The CFG held an open meeting for faculty members on October 29, 1999 on the Faculty Meeting that was attended by 55-60 faculty members. Many issues discussed there related to ways to make Faculty Meetings a more effective forum for discussion and decision-making and will be addressed in a proposed operating code.

One issue that received considerable discussion related to the question of attendance at Faculty Meetings, a topic with a lengthy and controversial history. After considerable deliberation, interviews with members of President's Staff, and weighing of alternatives, the CFG proposed a motion to clarify and define who are entitled to attend Faculty Meetings. The CFG moved this motion at the April Faculty Meeting, and the May Faculty Meeting defeated the proposal. Thus for the forseeable future, CFG believes that the question of who attends these meetings is closed. CFG expects to make no motion that will alter the existing language in the Faculty Handbook on this point.

During 1999-2000 the President consulted CFG on several occasions, and CFG expressed its views on the composition and mode of selection for faculty members on the search committees for the chief academic officer and the vice president for advancement. CFG also advised the President on the composition and mode of appointment of faculty members for the IPC summer study group. The CFG met with Susan Bender to discuss CFG's views about proper faculty input for Tang Teaching Museum and Art Gallery program development and for the Middle States steering committee that will prepare the Periodic Progress Report for Skidmore College. On all of these occasions, CFG supported having adequate and appropriate faculty representation, making effective use of existing committees and of faculty time where possible, and allowing for degrees of flexibility. In the case of the search for a CAO, the CFG requested that the search committee prepare an operating code and share that with the faculty at large.

CFG also met with the "Toronto Five". John Brueggemann, Bob Desieno, and Denise Smith, Mehmet Odekon and Patty Rubio had attended meetings in Toronto, sponsored by the AACU (Association of American Colleges and Universities) and ACAD (Association of College Academic Deans). The meeting stressed themes that related to making college/faculty governance more effective, being respectful of collegial relations, and acknowledging the importance of unique campus culture. All agreed on the need for improved communications and better coordination of efforts. The Committee of Committees holds the possibility of playing a more important role in this regard and may institute several reforms: a beginning of the year meeting instead of the practice of having meetings mainly at the end of each term, establishing an email list for chairs of the member committees, sharing minutes.

Committee of Committee reports to the Faculty Meetings in February and May identified areas that deserve close attention. The May report, for example, included the following:

1. Relations with the administration during 1999-2000 were characteristically cordial and candid. Administrators seemed genuinely interested in listening to faculty express positions on issues.
2. Inherent differences in structure and responsibility between faculty committees that have advisory roles and administration that have decision-making authority and between committees dependent on information flow from the administration and administration in possession of information led to faculty on some committees feeling that their efforts were not as effective as they might have been.
3. Faculty committees are deeply interested in the big issues that loom ahead on strategic planning, allocation of resources between capital and operating budgets, a new core curriculum, phase two of reconfiguration, and the like, and expect to play an important part in addressing these issues.
4. The committee of committees encourages even closer coordination between the chairs of faculty committees and the administration so that the chairs
   1. are kept informed in a timely fashion on key issues that affect the work of their committees and
   2. are in agreement with the administration on the procedures that will be followed by the administration and the committees in addressing their common business.
5. The Committee of Committees is concerned with what may be the trend toward having committees work throughout the year, including December holidays, the break between fall and spring terms, and the summer. CFG already has recurrent difficulties enlisting enough faculty members to run for committees; it has eliminated the nominating ballot entirely; it will have to run several special elections for sabbatical replacements in the fall because there are no eligible runners-up in prior elections to fill these vacancies.

On other matters on its agenda, CFG found it did not have the time to move forward on an orientation program for new faculty members that would introduce them to faculty and college governance at the College. However, CFG supports the current initiative of Associate Dean Susan Bender who is considering a year-long series of events for first-year faculty that might well include a session on this topic. CFG and CAPT did not meet during the year to work on incorporating language from the CFG Report on Presidential Searches into the Faculty Handbook in part because the immediacy of the search for a Chief Academic Officer and the loss of a sense of urgency on moving in this direction. CFG also chose not to engage in a study of FPPC and IPC, two committees that fall under the existing rubric of faculty governance but have broad institutional responsibilities, a majority of non-faculty members, and in the case of IPC, a non-faculty chairperson. The CFG explained to the February Faculty Meeting that "both are engaged in important discussions about their functions. FPPC is shifting its attention more to matters of policy and planning and away from line by line scrutiny of proposed operating budgets and IPC is considering how to establish an effective strategic planning group." Accordingly, CFG felt it wise to give the committees more space and time to see how these changes work out. (Return to the top of the document)

AGENDA FOR 2000-2001. (1) Propose Faculty Handbook for 2000-2001, (2) conduct four rounds of elections, make omnibus appointments, fill sabbatical vacancies, (3) propose a revision in the Faculty Handbook text on the function of CFG, (4) prepare an Operating Code for Faculty Meetings, (5) work with the Committee on Committees to improve communication and help inform the faculty of the major issues facing faculty governance, (6) address unfinished or deferred work from 1999-2000. (Return to the top of the document)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The CFG acknowledges with pleasure the cooperation of faculty members of other committees and of numerous individual members of the faculty, administration, professional and support staff. It expresses special thanks to Leo Geoffrion who provided invaluable advice and exercised considerable patience in helping the committee move toward electronic balloting. CFG happily acknowledges the capable and generous assistance of Susan Blair with all aspects of committee elections; Chrisana McGill with the preparation of the Faculty Handbook; and Claire Demarest with matters related to the agenda and minutes of Faculty Meetings. Finally, the continuing members of CFG thank Betty Balevic and Mary Stange, whose terms end, for their many contributions to the work of the committee this year. (Return to the top of the document)

(Return to the top of the document)