Miami-Dade Community College (Florida)

Academe, May/Jun 2000

By letter of February 1, 1999, President Padron once again questioned the Association's decision to proceed, reiterated the administration's decision not to cooperate, and charged the staff with "approaching this matter as a `faculty union' versus the `College administration,' and not as a concern about overall governance." On February 12 the staff replied, emphasizing to the president the investigating committee's desire to hear a broad spectrum of views on the issues that divided the MDCC community and again requesting the administration's assistance in identifying individuals to meet with the committee.

The investigating committee, after examining extensive documentation assembled by the Association's staff relating to the above-described sequence of events, visited Miami-Dade Community College on March S-6> 1999. Invitations to meet with the committee were previously sent to all of the faculty of the college by local members of the AAUP. The investigating committee interviewed a total of eighty-seven faculty members, with representation from all of the campuses. Most were interviewed in groups of four or five, some in larger groups, and individual interviews also took place. The committee encouraged communications from all points of view and perspectives.

Despite repeated requests from the AAUP staff and subsequent requests by committee members, the administration of MiamiDade Community College held to its refusal to participate in the investigation. The investigating committee wishes to note, however, that Provost Lukenbill personally greeted committee members at the Wolfson Campus, provided meeting rooms at the various campuses, and was at all times cordial. The committee regrets the unwillingness of the administration to cooperate with the investigation, but it believes that the interviews it was able to conduct at the college and the voluminous materials it was able to review both before and after its visit provided a sufficient basis for the findings and conclusions that follow.

III. The Issues

1. Governance Policies in Effect at Miami-Dade Community College Prior to March 1998. Generally accepted standards of academic government are enunciated in the Association's Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.z This statement rests on the premise of appropriately shared responsibility and cooperative action among governing board, administration, and faculty in determining educational policy and in resolving educational problems within the academic institution. It also refers to "an inescapable interdependence" in this relationship that requires "adequate communication among these components" and "full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort." It further asserts that "the interests of all are coordinate and related, and unilateral effort can lead to confusion or conflict."

Since its early years, Miami-Dade Community College had what the investigating committee considers to have been a mature and quite well-developed structure of shared governance. Prior to March 1998, the Governance Constitution of the Faculty Senates (better known as Policy I-80, or simply I-80) was the principal governance document for the college. That document, initially adopted by faculty vote in 1969 and approved by the district board of trustees as official college policy, created a system of faculty senates on the individual campuses; a subsequent revision of the policy in 1977 established a college-wide consortium of senates. The preamble of I-80 stated that MDCC, "by this instrument, cooperatively establishes participative governance between its faculty and administration." The preamble also stated that "both faculty and administration arm and accept a proper share of responsibility to promote the harmonious functioning of all parts of this association." Article I ("Operation") went on to provide that