Executive Committee Report
Since last we met in November, I have been on a journey: A journey to understand shared
governance, its importance and why I do what I do but mostly, to find a suitable answer the
statement, I so often hear from others, “why should I care, faculty are not heard in Bray Hall”.
My journey began with the Middle States visit. As would be expected the Middle States Review
Team asked to meet with the leaders of faculty governance. This was essentially the chairs of
most of your governance committees and myself. I prepared as best I could, brushed up on our
bylaws, perused the Faculty Governance minutes for the last several years, read the Middle
States reports, had a conversation with Valerie. With sustainability as the lens we used to
review campus activities, I researched what sustainable governance meant, decided we weren’t
exactly Africa but we were far from being Denmark, and finally I took a close look at who the
team was that would be interviewing us. I knew that Tom Apple was Provost and a chemist of
the University of Delaware an institution I knew pretty well, that Michelle Appel was in
Admissions and that Art Johnson was not only a retired Provost, but he had been Governance
chair at UMBC and Chair of the Maryland System-wide Governance. I even knew that Art’s
latest publication was on minor league baseball! As your representative, I felt that I’d done my
homework and that I would not embarrass you at this meeting.
Well, all that careful prep was undone with Art Johnson’s first question, “why are junior faculty
leading faculty governance?” Of all the things I thought we’d discuss, this was going to be about
my rank? Really? I gave honest answers, “I hope to be here long term and would like to make
sure it is a place I want to work at down the road”, “I consider this an investment in my future”, “I
encourage my students to do service, so I should participate in service too”, “I was looking for a
leadership opportunity” and “well at the time, I was the write in vote”. The follow up questions
were what you would expect, “didn’t anyone tell you this was a bad idea”, “is the administration
behind this”, “what does this mean for P&T”. I gave answers that placated them and apparently
they were supported by our administration in subsequent interviews later that day.
Then the call came that Art Johnson wanted to meet with me again, alone this time. I decided
the best defense was to go on the offense. Before he could do more than tell me that he
seemed to believe that a strong involvement by junior faculty governance was actually the
Provost’s Plan, I asked him “why does everyone think that governance isn’t important?” I mean
he had been me, at UMBC, not as a junior faculty apparently, but none the less there had a
been a time when he believed in Governance too! He waffled, said as a faculty member he saw
the value, but as a provost, not so much. It was a telling moment that has had me thinking
about why I, personally, care about Governance and why we, collectively, should care about
Governance.
In the weeks since, I’ve asked myself if I believed what I said or should I have listened to the
voices of the faculty at that table, in my department and across our campus who have told me it
was a big mistake and were standing ready to sign my termination papers. Trying to understand
the apathy toward governance, the antagonism toward administration and to find reasons to
believe it is important, I’ve read more than 25 papers in the last few weeks about shared
governance its definition and its role on college campuses. To better understand our own
administration, I’ve had conversations with Bruce and Neil about the role it can and should play
here. I’ve fielded emails from dissatisfied faculty that tell me Governance is a huge waste of
their time, no one hears faculty, that the administration will do what it will do and we’ll have to
live with it, and I’ve asked myself, why do I bother.
Today I stand before you with a much better understanding and appreciation for the role of
Shared Governance, a much clearer sense of purpose than I’ve had since you “elected” me, let
alone six weeks ago in the Middle States review.
Shared governance is about communicating. About having an organized way of giving voice to
what the faculty as a body thinks is important. It is about creating sound policy, creating
curriculum and academic programs, looking at student academic issues, and creating a
community of scholars, run by scholars. It is only when the body acts together and with one
collective voice that we can have meaningful change and to do that, we need to have a strong,
organized and well run shared governance structure.
Shared governance is not, where a committee makes a decision and it gets implemented, it is
not faculty governing the university and administration doing the dirty work and it is not unilateral
decision making by administration. It is all members of the university community working
collaboratively for the greater good. It is a delicate balance between faculty, staff and student
participation in the planning processes and administrative accountability. In a recent Chronicle
of Higher Ed article, Gary Olson comments, “Genuine shared governance gives voice (but not
necessarily ultimate authority) to concerns common to all constituencies as well as to issues
unique to specific groups.”
As a member of the Executive Committee for the last 5 years I can’t remember a time that we
had something come to the group for action. Curriculum, the primary concern of the faculty,
was shifted off to committee shortly before I got here and decisions concerning curriculum made
“on our behalf”. I was there when 8 professors who didn’t really understand what was
happening, “voted” on the electronic student evaluations. I don’t know if the present state of
evaluations would have been any different if all 120 full-time faculty where there to vote but at
least I would feel like it wasn’t a minority of faculty that approved this. I still feel like the decision
was made before the group walked through the door and that we were just being informed. I
don’t remember a resolution or a vote, I do however, remember people asking me if this was
really going to happen and later, when did this happen and even now, why did this happen?
This to me is not shared governance, it was a small group of people making decisions because
they needed to be made and because the structure wasn’t there to bring it to the larger body
effectively. To be clear, my issue is not with the action taken, but rather in the process by which
the action was evaluated.
We need to stop this and start making governance a priority, come to the meetings that are
scheduled with no course conflicts, write resolutions asking for what we think would make the
university community better, stronger, we need to discuss the pros and cons and make informed
recommendations. If you feel strongly that we need to return to paper evaluations, write the
resolution. What about the budget? Some would say we need more representation and
influence, write the resolution. Don’t email me expecting me to take up your cause, email me
with a resolution and expect that I will work to make sure it is considered. To date, many
decisions have been made by small groups such Academic Council, standing committees or
even my own Executive Committee. I have sensed a growing lack of satisfaction with this
model. It’s time to “return” to a model where things that affect everyone on campus are voted
on and that arguments for and against are heard. It is time to stop making policy
recommendations behind closed doors because the decision needs to be made and we are too
unorganized and unengaged to discuss it in a pubic forum.
A question I have asked and been asked over the last year and a half is, what is under the
purview of faculty governance? What I have come to conclude is that faculty should (and in
many cases are) to be consulted on matters surrounding: curriculum, degree requirements,
grading policies, educational program development, governance structures, accreditation,
professional development, program review, faculty recruitment and hiring, institutional planning
and budget development. Outside of these areas, there are certainly grey areas where faculty
could and should have a voice, but ultimately policy recommendations should come to the full
faculty for ratification. Then, when we as a “collective” body vote in support of a
recommendation, we should have the right to ask the administration to be accountable for the
ultimate outcome of our recommendation. If it is unactionable? Why is it unactionable? We
should be informed of the fate of our recommendations and how and when they will be dealt
with.
Therefore, I am here to encourage you to continue to be interested, to continue to prioritize
these meetings and to continue to remain involved. Shared governance on many college
campuses has fallen through the cracks. Just down Irving Avenue, Upstate Medical is
struggling with the largest academic integrity issue in that institution’s history. Governance had
become so weak that the Administration had no choice but to step in and make some very
controversial decisions about curriculum matters without the consultation with campus leaders.
In an article to the New York Times in the wake of the Sandusky revelations, Professor Michael
Berube of Penn State comments that “shared governance is the least well understood aspect of
academic freedom and as a result, it is honored chiefly in the breach”. This is certainly true at
UMU and Penn State, even a strong, functioning Governance perhaps would not have mitigated
these incidents but at the very least they would be able to respond appropriately and quickly.
I hope that you will consider what I’ve said and where my journey has taken me, and decide
what position you wish to take with respect to governance: Active participant, concerned
bystander, unengaged silent partner, or simply complainer. It is ultimately up to you, but do it for
the right reasons.
All this said, the Spring Elections are upon us, we will need new committee chairs, executive
chairs and senators. I ask that you consider what role you will take and to step up if you are
committed to giving your faculty colleagues a voice. Taking a clue from two of Dr. Suess’ best
works, the Lorax and Horton Hears a Who, “take my truffula seed, plant a new Truffula, Treat it
with Care, Give it clean water and Feed it fresh air”. And remember just one voice no matter
how small can make all the difference.