Governance Review Without Tears

Academe, Nov/Dec 2006 by Davis, Lynn K, Page, Deborah L

You, too, can overhaul your governance structure without alienating anyone.

Yes, it can happen. The faculty at the Raymond Walters College of the University of Cincinnati, where we teach, recently conceived, developed, and implemented a complete governance review that the faculty approved unanimously. We're going to tell you how we did it-the rest is up to you. But we hope you can benefit on your campus from our experience.

Raymond Walters College is one of the sixteen colleges of the University of Cincinnati. This branch campus offers transfer programs, associate degrees, and technical baccalaureate degrees. The college's more than 140 faculty members and its governance structure are mostly independent of the rest of the university-the state even funds our college separately. All faculty of the university, however, are governed by the collective bargaining contract established by the University of Cincinnati chapter of the AAUP.

The college has a long history of active shared governance. The faculty participate fully in a system of college committees that handle academic affairs; faculty reappointment, promotion, and tenure; curriculum and assessment; student honors and probation; faculty development; and issues involving strategic planning and infrastructure management. A set of faculty bylaws governs each committee as well as the organization of the faculty as a body, with certain responsibilities delegated to an elected faculty executive committee. The bylaws are included in the college's faculty handbook. Current and past versions of the handbook, as well as minutes of faculty meetings, are available at www.libraries.uc.edu/libraries/rwc under Faculty Resources.

Why Governance Restructuring?

Shortly after the college's inception in 1967, shared governance was instituted with a faculty committee structure. Over the next thirty-five years, ad hoc committees evolved and proliferated. During the 1990s, students and staff members were added to faculty committees, many of which also included one or more administrators, who served ex officio. Gradually, as the ratio of faculty to other members changed, faculty control of the direction of committee work decreased. The college dean and other administrators attended and influenced the direction of committee meetings, and senior faculty participation decreased, leaving more of the work to junior faculty. Each committee conducted its affairs independently and made recommendations directly to administrators, although some issues were brought before the entire faculty for approval. Committee minutes varied in thoroughness and were not distributed until alter committee approval, often months alter a meeting had occurred.

These developments resulted in the diffusion of the faculty's voice and a governance structure that provided no mechanism for true shared governance. Efforts by individual committees to review their bylaw's could not address the overall governance organization nor strengthen the voice of the faculty. In 2002, when the college dean was near to completing her term of office, the time seemed right to consider a new governance structure.

A New Vision

To begin the process, the faculty executive committee appointed an ad hoc governance review committee consisting of senior faculty members. They had a history of effective leadership, broad institutional knowledge, and governance expertise; their job was to consider the good of the institution as a whole, not to represent particular academic departments or committees. Collectively, they had served on every committee in the college and had experience in university-wide governance and the AAUP. The committee included faculty members who had been department heads as well us a former associate dean, who provided a valuable administrative perspective. Junior faculty members appointed after the time when faculty had a stronger role in governance perhaps did not fully appreciate the problem of the weakening of the faculty voice. Although they participated actively in the day-to-day committee work of the college, most junior faculty seemed content to have experienced faculty lake the lead.

The governance review committee quickly realized the need to define "faculty governance" and "shared college governance" and to distinguish the role of the faculty and its contractual domain from that of the other governing bodies at the college. The committee referenced university bylaws, rules, and contracts as well as AAUP and accreditation-association documents, noting two important principles. It determined that any new governance structure would have to enable the faculty (1) to make its own regulations governing matters within its jurisdiction (faculty gorernance) and (2) to participate in decision making with other constituencies involving broader issues within the institution (shared college governance). Accordingly, following research, solicited recommendations, and debate, the committee developed a vision for a revised governance structure with a twofold goal: (1) to re-establish faculty-only committees in those areas that are clearly in the purview of faculty and (2) to support true college-wide shared governance through a framework of multiconstituent committees.