Report from the Shared Governance Research Task Force
Submitted to Faculty Council, Interim Provost Linda Petrosino
and President Thomas Rochon
History
On May 17, 2013, Faculty Council passed the following motion establishing the
Shared Governance Research Task Force:
Shared Governance Research Task Force Charge
Charge:
1. To research, examine and recommend putting forth for discussion a variety of
Shared Governance structures suitable for adoption and implementation at Ithaca
College;
2. To articulate all of the potential pros and cons of each structure recommended.
Membership:
1. Three faculty members chosen by Faculty Council;
2. Three administration members chosen by the President and Provost or by such
means as they derive.
Other:
1. The Task Force reports directly to Faculty Council and the President and Provost;
2. The Task Force should endeavor to complete its study by January 1, 2014, but
may extend that date as needed.
Task Force Membership and Process
The college administration responded positively and the Shared Governance
Research Task Force was convened with three administrators (Karl Paulnack, Dean of the
School of Music, Carol Henderson, Associate Provost for Accreditation, Assessment and
Curriculum, and Linda Petrosino, Dean of the School of Health Sciences and Human
Performance) and three faculty members elected by Faculty Council (Vivian Bruce
Conger, Associate Professor of History, Howard Erlich, Associate Professor of
Communication Studies, and Jorge Grossman, Associate Professor of Music
Composition). After their first meeting, Peter Rothbart, Chair of Faculty Council and
Professor of Electroacoustic Music, also joined the Task Force, to serve as facilitator.
Linda Petrosino subsequently left the group upon her appointment as Interim Provost;
Michael Richardson, Associate Dean for Faculty and Special Initiatives from the School
of Humanities and Sciences was appointed to fill the vacancy.
1
The Task Force engaged in considerable research and discussion as well as
outreach to colleagues at other institutions in developing this document. They held a onehour open meeting to solicit faculty input regarding current issues of governance at the
college. The college supported a two-day retreat at which members discussed the various
college governance options available and began developing a rough draft of this
document, by breaking into groups of two, each group assuming responsibility for
developing one governance model. A schedule was established, during which time the
three Task Force teams further developed their assigned governance model, then
submitted it for comments from the complete Task Force. Each team then considered
those comments in revising their portion of the final document, which was then edited for
form and cohesiveness before being finally approved by the entire Task Force.
It should be noted that Peter Rothbart, while serving as facilitator, also took an
active role in developing the document, since one Task Force member was not available
for the retreat. The Task Force completed its work by September 1, 2014 and hereby
submits it to Faculty Council and the President and Provost of Ithaca College, as per its
charge and is hereby dismissed from service.
About This Document
The intent behind this document and the motion that brought the Shared
Governance Research Task Force into existence was to examine and/or develop a variety
of college governance models that might be applicable to Ithaca College. The hope was
to further establish the idea of shared governance, and to allow the college and its
constituencies to engage more efficiently and effectively through the governance process.
The Task Force is not endorsing or encouraging one model of governance over another.
The Task Force acknowledges that additional models of governance exist at other
institutions, but after long and careful research and discussion, the Task Force feels that
these three models hold the most potential for Ithaca College.
The Task Force included a list of pros and cons for each of the governance
systems described. It should be understood that these are subjective, anecdotal lists, not
intended to be all-inclusive, but rather to help initiate further discussion. Further
discussion regarding these models is certainly warranted. The Task Force encourages all
constituencies at the college to engage in cooperative dialog regarding the relevance of
this document, and whether it is feasible, necessary and desirable to implement one of the
proposed models, or some variation of it.
The Task Force was not charged with charting the course of the discussion once
their document has been delivered to the Faculty Council, President and Provost.
Nonetheless, a discussion was held in which it was suggested that a centralized source of
information and forum for commentary be established, along with series of open
meetings be held to discuss the document. It was suggested that open meetings might
include not just faculty and administrators but perhaps staff and students as well.
2
It is worth noting that the Task Force identified communication as a key
component of successful governance. In order to be effective, any model of governance
we use, including our current one, must have better communication than has been the
norm in the past. Analysis by the Task Force clearly showed that communication among
and between all groups on our campus has not been as effective as is should be. Certainly
one of the most important things to come out of this Task Force is the recognition that
any form of governance will be ineffective if communication among all constituencies is
not properly cultivated.
Respectfully submitted,
Vivian Bruce Conger
Howard Erlich
Jorge Grossman
Carol Henderson
Karl Paulnack
Michael Richardson
Peter Rothbart
3
Models Proposed for Consideration
The Task Force proposes three governance models for consideration. The first,
Traditional Model Revisited, is essentially a modified version of the system we currently
use, with changes and enhancements added to address issues identified by the Task Force
during their research. The Sustainable System Governance (SSG) model acknowledges
the need for systemic structure and stability in the College’s governance system, balanced
with the need for fluidity, change, responsiveness, inclusiveness and interdependence.
The Collaboration and Consultation model is based on a structure in use at Santa Clara
University; it relies on a central committee to guide the governance process, and
emphasizes the role of stakeholder groups in timely decision-making.
For each of these three models, a brief description is provided, along with a list of
pros and cons. Also included is a set of three scenarios to illustrate how each model
might operate in practice. The first scenario is the creation of a new course with
Integrative Core Curriculum (ICC) themes and perspectives designations. The second
scenario is a change in college employees’ percentage of contribution toward the cost of
health benefits. The third looks at how the College might make decisions related to the
design and construction of a new building.
Model One: Traditional Model Revisited
This proposed system modifies and builds upon our current system of governance,
recognizing that many elements of the idea of Shared Governance already exist in our
current bylaws and documentation. However, in many cases, we are simply not
following our own published procedures and rules. In other cases, this model fills gaps in
our current system. It is clear that communication under our current system is often
ineffective. Fundamental to the proposed model is the improvement, codification and
enforcement of lines of communication among all stakeholders.
This model acknowledges that while faculty members are certainly cognizant of
their service responsibilities to the college, their primary focus is on teaching and
scholarship. The model attempts to encourage faculty representation on relevant
committees but in a strategic way, relying on open communication and ready access to
information coupled with an easy, efficient method of response and input into issues that
affect the faculty’s primary focus.
The current governance structure adheres closely to the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,
which affirms the need for joint efforts among various constituencies -- faculty, staff,
administrators, students -- while acknowledging specific areas of primary responsibility
associated with each group. While the faculty has primary responsibility for areas such
as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and
aspects of academic student life related to the educational process, the President has
4
ultimate managerial responsibility and authority, and the Board of Trustees holds final
institutional authority. Implicit in this model is the fact that committee recommendations,
particularly as they pertain to academic policy, are subject to the ultimate approval of the
President and the Board of Trustees.
In principle, within each constituent group there exist lines of authority,
responsibility, and communication. The participation of these groups in the decision
making process, in the form of public forums, committee participation, and/or
opportunities for feedback, allows a broad range of perspectives to be considered. A
commitment to sharing information, in the form of agendas, minutes, recommendations,
and reports, allows for transparency in the decision making process.
However, current practices do not always reflect the model as it is currently
codified, in the Ithaca College Policy Manual and in the bylaws of the college’s councils
and committees. We are experiencing problems with the implementation of the model,
rather than with the model itself. This proposal builds upon the existing model, reinforces
key concepts of that model, addresses insufficiencies and omissions, and provides for a
more interactive relationship among all concerned groups.
Key Elements:
1. Governing councils: Faculty Council, Staff Council, and the Student Government
Association represent key constituencies. Faculty, staff, students, and
administrators all have representative bodies to which they may bring concerns.
For administrators, the Administrative Assembly could function as this body.
2. Committee definitions, mandates, and review: Governing councils and
appropriate administration officials may at their discretion call into existence a
task force or ad hoc committee to address specific issues. Governing councils and
administration officials are expected to reevaluate all of their standing and ad hoc
committees and task forces on a regular basis with respect to purpose, structure,
membership, and leadership. Ad hoc committees and task forces should
automatically sunset once their initial purpose has been met, unless otherwise
decided by the council or official that created them. All governing councils and
administrative officials should clearly communicate the charge, make up, and
designation (monitoring, policy-making, or advisory) of their respective
committees. By definition, advisory committees are those which serve primarily
as information resources for policy makers. Policy making committees are those
committees charged with reviewing existing policy and making recommendations
regarding the revision of existing policy and the drafting of new policy.
Recommendations made by these committees would generally be accepted and
implemented by the institution, except for cases in which they could not be
approved due to overriding budgetary, policy or regulatory concerns as indicated
by the President, Provost, General Counsel, or their offices, Faculty Council, Staff
Council, or the Board of Trustees. Monitoring committees are neither advisory
nor policy making committees. They are charged with making sure that a policy
5
or procedure is being effectively carried out, and that other groups under their
jurisdiction are successful in their efforts. In most cases, these committees will
report their findings to a policy-making committee, supervising administrative
official and/or council.
3. Committees and their structure: It is important to carefully delineate the roles and
responsibilities of each committee, sub-committee, ad hoc committee and task
force. Each of these groups’ charge must indicate whether it is policy making, ,
advisory or monitoring. In addition, when establishing or reauthorizing the group,
the committee’s initiating administrative official or council must determine the
status and charge of the group. Most, if not all, academic committees have
participating representatives from both faculty and administration, allowing for
collaborative work on strategic governance and management issues. Not all
committees require representative membership structures, meaning a balance of
members from each school; membership on some committees should instead be
expertise or competency based. “Expertise or competency based” is taken to mean
that the committee members have special, specific knowledge, skills or interests
relevant to the committee. Other committees, such as those responsible for
making policy or curriculum recommendations which will have a significant
impact across the institution (such as the Academic Policies Committee, or the
Committee on College-Wide Requirements) should be representative, taken to
mean that a balance between the various schools and administrative structures is
established. In either case, the committee must reach out to all relevant and
interested parties for information, data and constructive opinions and ideas. Any
further pursuit of this model should include guidelines for establishing the nature
and character of committee charges, communication procedures, and committee
makeup.
4. Cross-constituency openness: Any member of the college community may bring
an issue either to an appropriate standing committee or to their own representative
council. For issues that defy clear assignment, a standing committee or council
could refer the issue to the relevant faculty, staff, administrative or student
council. Councils will have the ability to examine any issue presented to them by
other committees or by individuals.
5. Access and communication: Although open access and communication regarding
governing body and committee actions (minutes, agendas, decisions, etc.) is
mandated by the current policy manual, implementation is uneven, sporadic, and
decentralized. The revised IC model would thus include a renewed commitment
to communication and openness, enhanced by an updated web presence with
access to information and committee member contact information through a
central portal to be maintained by the college as a whole and accessible to all
constituencies. Governing councils would hold town halls and open meetings on
issues of major concern throughout the decision-making and implementation
processes.
6
6. Accountability: Governing councils and appropriate administration officials are
responsible for ensuring that their committees maintain proper and timely
communication with the larger Ithaca College community. Committees provide
the appropriate governing council or lead administrator with regular updates and
additionally update their web presence at least once each month during the
academic year.
Pros:
1. Clear articulation of roles and responsibilities
2. Processes are defined
3. Enduring model that has met with success in a variety of institutions and
situations over time.
4. Does not appreciably add to existing faculty work/service load.
5. Builds upon widely accepted AAUP principles.
6. While much of the structure may already be in place, this model refines and
reinforces elements that have proven successful at IC, while revising and
remaking elements that have been less successful.
Cons:
1. Could encourage complacency within constituencies.
2. Potential for committees to resist input from stakeholders not affiliated with the
committees’ governing councils.
3. Model as codified is often better than the model as practiced.
Scenarios:
Scenario One: Creating a new course with theme and perspective designations.
The faculty member submits a course proposal to his/her respective department
and school committees. Once locally approved, that proposal is submitted simultaneously
to the Academic Policies Committee and the CCR. Upon approval by APC, CCR and the
Provost, the course becomes part of the catalog.
Scenario Two: Health benefits cost increase for employees
Any faculty or staff member may address their respective Council regarding
salary or compensation issues. The Council may choose to study the issue in more depth,
or refer it to their respective budget committee for consideration and development. Any
discussion would be posted on the central website with the opportunity for comments
from the community. Should the committee decide that the issue warrants further
comment, an open meeting could be called. After the meeting, the committee would
respond to the petition, shape a counter-proposal, if warranted, and submit it to the
respective council for a vote. The council would then engage with the petitioner to
convey the results of the vote.
Scenario Three: New building on campus.
7
Any community member may raise the issue of a new facility with the relevant
Council and/or the relevant all-campus facilities and planning committee. That committee
would solicit input from a variety of sources, including online sources, open meetings
and experts regarding the relevance, timeliness and viability of the issue. All materials
would be posted online. Relevant Councils would be responsible to make sure that
stakeholder input was represented properly and would have the power to constitute adhoc committees to render input (while providing public output) as the proposal/project
progresses.
Model Two: Sustainable System Governance
The Sustainable System Governance (SSG) model relates to sustainability in
multiple ways. It is characterized by a balance between stability and change. It includes
a stable structure with a small number of standing committees, and also a process for
creating and supporting fluid, flexible working groups. It is adaptable to multiple styles
of leadership and participation. Although it can be “flavored” by personalities, it is not
locked into a specific personality style or leadership approach. Individual people can
come and go, enter and leave the system, without creating imbalance or disharmony,
more readily than in many other governance structures. The SSG model encourages and
supports integration and interdependence among various areas of the institution, across
traditional boundaries. It is informed by systems theory, and intended to function largely
as a self-governing model. It increases the opportunity for anyone within the
organization to take a leadership role on issues and items that concern them, and calls on
each participating individual to engage around issues that matter. The success of SSG
depends upon a fairly high level of distributed engagement on the part of multiple areas
and constituencies. This model is characterized by open communication and
participation in a clearly-understood and well-facilitated process.
SSG is made up of four key elements:
1. An integrated Bulletin Board System (BBS) for easy internal sharing and tracking
of governance work and governance structures. An example of such a system is
the software product FirstClass, which is used by many colleges and universities
for this purpose. A BBS is an online system that allows any member of the
organization to access governance and decision-making information, track related
processes, and either participate actively in the related online conversations or
stay informed about what others are doing.
2. Open Space Technology, as a way to hold a periodic, ongoing series of facilitated
open meetings, leading to concrete action plans. Open Space Technology (OST) [
see www.openspaceworld.org/ for additional information] is a structured,
organized method of bringing together large groups in a way that surfaces issues
and concerns, allows expression of individual viewpoints, and brings together
smaller teams for discussion and development of action plans. Each OST session
8
results in a series of action plans and individual/group commitments, which are
brought back to the full group near the end of the session. This technique allows
open meetings to be more practical and productive, and organizes the results in
ways that are easy to record, store, access and understand. Open Space sessions
with no specific theme would be made available on a regular basis, perhaps once
or twice each year. Open Space sessions could also be held on specific topics, or
by/for particular constituency groups, such as faculty.
3. “Zero-based” governance structures, including a minimal basic set of standing
committees, serving as the backbone of the system, and as-needed committees
that expire within a standard period unless renewed. In this model, the minimal
basic set is proposed to include six college-wide standing committees: one each
for the areas of curriculum, budget, facilities, tenure & promotion, strategic
planning, and assessment/institutional effectiveness.
4. Cross-Divisional Functional Teams (CDFT): issues not covered by a specific
group within the standing committees would be addressed by the use of crossdivisional functional teams. These groups would come into existence, bring their
task or issue to completion, and then go out of existence. This approach ensures
that the overall system stays simple over time, rather than becoming more
complex by adding new committees as new issues and tasks emerge. Team
members are selected by their function within the institution, rather than by
constituency membership or academic school; faculty serving on such a team
would be chosen by their connection with its main topic. An example of a CDFT
at Ithaca College would be the NCUR coordination team. Charged with planning
and operating the 2011 National Conference on Undergraduate Research, this
team was made up of administrators from key areas (such as Auxiliary Services,
or Public Safety and Emergency Management) as well as faculty members with a
history of engagement and interest in undergraduate research. It also included
two students, who were taking an IC course in event management.
9
•Bulletin Board
System
•Cross Division
Functional
Teams
•Open Space
Technology
BBS
OST
CDFT
ZBG
•"Zero Based"
Governance
5.
This model would be managed in its operational aspects by administrators, with each
vice president of the college responsible for sustaining SSG in their area of responsibility,
including the operation of Cross-Divisional Functional Teams. This aspect of the system
would be counterbalanced by a strong Faculty Council, which would serve a monitoring
role regarding system performance and integrity, and could actively engage the process
whenever key issues and important topics might be overlooked, and/or need to have more
prominence and attention within the system. With the Bulletin Board System available to
allow tracking of process, progress and results for each committee and team, faculty
would be able to access this information, and could bring any related questions or
concerns either directly to the committee/team members, or to the Faculty Council. The
Faculty Council could then communicate with either the committee/team, or with the
appropriate vice president, to address those questions or concerns. A similar role could
be played by the Staff Council and the Student Government Association. Vice presidents
working on the creation of a CDFT would gather input from the Faculty Council, Staff
Council and/or Student Government Association, as well as from other administrators,
regarding the charge and membership of the team, as appropriate for the topic or issue
under review.
Pros:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Allows ideas to originate from anyone and anywhere within the organization.
Has a strong key role for Faculty Council.
Can reduce the overall workload of governance.
Characterized by open communication and transparency.
Can support the growth of trust and help to sustain trust over time.
10
6. Allows integrators among different areas of the college to flourish within the
system.
7. Allows distributed leadership, letting any participant be part of the leadership
aspect of issues that matter to them, whether as a committee/team member, a
participant in open sessions, or a member of their constituency group.
8. Reduces silos and isolation in decision making.
9. Mitigates against “us vs. them” inter-group dynamics.
10. Promotes engagement in governance, at a relatively low individual
cost/investment.
11. Open to participation by all types and levels of faculty members.
Cons:
1. System may get bogged down by a few individuals who continue to reintroduce
the same issues.
2. Model is unusual, appears to be complex, and may be difficult to learn.
3. Participants in the prior governance system may perceive a reduction of their
authority.
4. Loss of influence for long-time participants in current system.
5. Although elements of this model exist and are used effectively, the entire system
has not yet been implemented elsewhere.
6. Distributes leadership, in a way that calls on many participants for leadership at
multiple levels.
7. Requires widespread engagement from multiple individuals and constituencies, as
committee/team members, participants in open sessions, and active participants
through their constituency groups.
Scenarios:
Scenario One: Creating a new course with themes and perspectives designations.
A course proposal would be developed by interested faculty member(s), brought
through the departmental and school review processes as appropriate to the subject area,
and referred to a college-wide curriculum committee for final review and approval. At
every stage in the process, the proposal would be widely available and readily accessible
through the Bulletin Board System, so that any interested party could track its progress
and monitor any changes made over time. (Note that this process does not differ from the
current approval process, as curriculum is one of the six standing committees proposed.
See #3 above, “Zero-Based” governance structures.)
Scenario Two: Health benefits cost increase for employees
The process could begin with an Open Space session focused on this topic area.
The results of that session would be made available to all college employees through the
11
Bulletin Board System, and the vice presidents primarily responsible for the related areas
(finance and human resources) would put together a Cross-Divisional Functional Team to
study the topic. The team would prepare a report of information, recommendations and
options to consider; a record of their work, and a copy of their report would be available
through the BBS. The report would be received by the appropriate vice-presidents, and
then go to the Finance standing committee for review and approval. The Faculty Council
and Staff Council would have access to related information through the BBS throughout
the process, and members of these groups should also be participants in the functional
team. Also, since this particular issue falls within the responsibilities of the President and
Board of Trustees, they would also need to approve any plan before it could be put into
action.
Scenario Three: New building on campus.
The need for a new structure would most likely arise in one of the twice-yearly
general Open Space sessions. A special topic Open Space session could follow, to gather
broad input into the deliberation process. A Cross-Divisional Functional Team would be
called together by the vice president responsible for facilities to study the topic, gather
input, and develop recommendations. The work of this team would come back to the
vice president, and would be provided to the Facilities standing committee, as well as to
the Budget committee. Since this topic crosses over both of those areas, the two standing
committees would need to work together in a joint process of review and approval. The
process and its results would be continuously accessible to college employees through the
BBS. Final approval by the President and Board of Trustees would also be required for
this type of decision.
Model Three: Collaboration and Communication
This model draws from an article by André Delbecq, et. al., “University
Governance: Lessons from an Innovative Design for Collaboration,” Journal of
Management Inquiry, 22/4 (2013). It is a model used with success at Santa Clara
University. It entails a College Coordinating Committee (CCC), six College Policy
Committees (CPCs), and implementation procedures.
At the first stage, any stakeholder group or any member of the college community
submits an issue of concern (that is, an issue that needs to be addressed by a governing
body) to the College Coordinating Committee.
At the second stage, the College Coordinating Committee (made up of five
members: an elected faculty chair, an elected faculty member at large, the provost,
president of faculty council, and president of staff council) appoints faculty, staff and
students to serve on College Policy Committees on the basis of competency. It is the
responsibility of the CCC to develop and maintain information on faculty and staff
regarding their expressions of experience, expertise, and interest in topics considered by
the various CPCs. This information should be shared with CPCs as needed. The CCC is
responsible for triaging—that is, sorting and prioritizing requests on the basis of what is
most urgent and the most efficient and effective response—each issue submitted by any
12
of the College’s stakeholder groups, and assigning it to the appropriate College Policy
Committee. It is also the responsibility of the CCC to guarantee appropriate consultation
and efficient deliberations of each CPC. Standing College Policy Committees include
Academics, Faculty Affairs, Staff Affairs, Student Affairs, Strategic Planning, and
Budget. Additional task forces can be created as needed, especially for issues that bridge
more than one CPC.
At the third stage, the appropriate policy committee approaches each issue
submitted to it in three steps: definition of the problem; determining possible solutions;
and recommending the solution. Recommendations are generally adopted as proposed,
except when the President or the Board of Trustees can present compelling reasons for
not doing so. Transparency (that is, effective communication and collaboration) at each
stage is crucial. Effective communication entails publishing agendas, briefing key
decision makers, soliciting input from the College community, and systematically
reporting actions.
At the fourth stage, administrators or appropriate bodies are responsible for
responding within 45 days and providing an action plan. In rare cases of continued
dispute, the case is referred back to the College Coordinating Committee in consultation
with the President for mediation.
Faculty
Staff
GCC
Students
The Governance Coordinating Committee (GCC) gathers input from multiple
constituencies, and refers each issue to the appropriate group or office for review
and resolution.
13
Pros:
1. Gives stakeholders a clear voice in the collaborative decision-making process.
2. Oversight by the CCC throughout the process should ensure that no key stakeholder
group oversteps its bounds.
3. Provides a clear and logical system in which every issue receives full consideration.
4. Because of the clear structure, every member of the community knows where to go to
resolve concerns.
5. The system does not allow concerns to be discussed and then simply filed away; CPCs
are given the power to provide recommendations that are generally adopted as proposed.
6. Process requires that a clear implementation plan be articulated in a timely fashion.
7. Committee structure is more efficient and less cumbersome.
Cons:
1. Stakeholders may not be fully committed to collaborative governance, especially newly
appointed faculty, staff and administrators.
2. Stakeholders may resist offering their expertise.
3. Stakeholders may not feel invested in the process; they may drift into complacency.
4. The CCC does not have enough information about competencies without stakeholders
volunteering that information; there has to be a clear system to identify potential
committee members.
5. If every issue is considered by the CCC, then the CCC could become overwhelmed or the
process could lose its effectiveness.
6. Unclear how this model affects Faculty Council, and also how complex decision making
would occur between Faculty Council and the various CPCs.
Scenarios:
Scenario One: Creating a new course with theme and perspective designations
A school, department or faculty member submits a proposal for a new theme
course. The CCC receives the petition, and reviews it. The CCC then passes the issue on
to the appropriate CPC, which in this particular case would be the Academics CPC. The
CPC deliberates on the proposal and approves it, rejects it, or recommends amendments.
During the review process, the CPC publishes meeting agendas and minutes, briefs key
decision makers, solicits input from the college community, and systematically reports
actions.
Scenario Two: Health benefits cost increase for employees
One stakeholder group submits a petition to raise employees’ contribution to
health coverage. Once the petition is submitted to the College Coordinating Committee,
the CCC reviews the issue in order of priority. The CCC then decides which College
Policy Committee to assign the issue to or whether special task force needs to be created.
In this case, because of the nature of the petition, the CCC could opt for one of two
methods to address the issue:
14
1) Create a task force that would bridge the faculty affairs, staff affairs and budget
CPCs. Members of the task force would be selected from the three CPCs in question on
the basis of competence and representation. Once the task force is formed, it would
deliberate on the issue and publish agendas, brief key decision makers, solicit input from
the College community, and systematically report actions. The task force would then
submit its final recommendation to the appropriate governing bodies for approval.
2) The CCC would assign the issue to the Budget CPC. The CPC would then
deliberate on the issue and work closely with Faculty Council, Staff Council and
administrators in addition to soliciting input from the college community before
submitting its final recommendation.
Scenario Three: New building on campus
The community learns of new plans for an impending “Creativity Center.” A
concerned member of the faculty attends the information sessions and walks away with
real concerns. That person brings the issue to the CCC for consideration. The CCC
would assign the issue to the Strategic Planning CPC for deliberation. That CPC would
work closely with the Budget CPC, the Academics CPC, as well as Faculty Council and
administrators—each of whom may consult designated experts at their discretion. Given
the nature of the proposed use of the new building, it would also be appropriate to have
the Strategic Planning CPC solicit input from the Student Affairs CPC. Alternatively and
ideally, given the nature of the concern and the CPCs involved, the CCC would create a
separate task force bridging the various concerned communities to resolve the issue—
again consulting designated experts at their discretion. Either the Strategic Planning CPC
(and the various CPCs it consults) or the newly created task force would diligently solicit
input from the college community, especially the academic community, publish meeting
agendas, keep in touch with key decision makers, and make public their discussions and
solicit feedback before submitting a final recommendation.
15