An update from President Charles E. Young
In
a previous issue of the President’s Update, I contrasted
the role of a faculty collective bargaining agent against one of
shared governance, in which authority is shared among the Board
of Trustees, the faculty, and the administration. Many people,
including officers of the Faculty Senate and the members of the
Senate Steering Committee, have asked me to amplify my views, explaining
how such a system would function at the University of Florida and
what steps we would have to take to accomplish this. I will attempt
in this brief communication to respond to both questions.
In the past three years, much progress has been made in strengthening the Faculty Senate and its role in the governance of UF. The Senate leadership and I have reached a consensus that we now need to examine carefully the changes that have been made and to decide how we want to proceed further. This will be accomplished through an intensive process that will begin this summer and will culminate in a revised set of governance procedures for review and action by appropriate administrative agencies, the Senate, and the Board of Trustees in the fall.
We have agreed that a joint Senate Administration Task Force will undertake this effort, with the Senate members being drawn from the Steering Committee, the Faculty Academic Advisory Committee and the Constitution Committee. I will serve either as co-chair or staff to the Task Force and will propose a framework for governance along with the accompanying issues that need to be resolved in developing the proposal.
That is a sketch of the task that lies ahead. I wish the final product were as simple as the sketch might make it appear. This will be an important, but a difficult and time-consuming undertaking, and I have committed to placing it at the top of my priority list for the period of time that will take to complete it.
Now, to the substance of shared governance: I said earlier that I would deliver to the first meeting of the Task Force a sketch of shared governance as I envision it for the University of Florida. What follows are the basic elements of that proposal if I were to make that presentation today. As with my comments about faculty collective bargaining, I welcome any comments you have, and will, undoubtedly, modify these views as a result of your responses.
With those caveats in mind, here is my vision:
As practiced at the leading American research universities, shared governance is a system of dual authority and responsibility, constitutionally created, in which certain decisions pertaining to university policy, rules and procedures fall within the control of the faculty or an organization selected by and acting on their behalf. Decisions pertaining to academic matters such as curriculum and degrees would be an appropriate example. Decisions in other policy areas that the governing body has delegated to administrative authority, but that have substantial impact on the academic enterprise are traditionally undertaken only after consultation with appropriate agencies of the faculty. Conversely, in making decisions that fall within their purview, senators are obligated to seek the counsel and advice of appropriate administrative officers.
Most would agree with that generic description. However, this statement leaves a great many issues to resolve in crafting an ideal system for UF. The two most important of these are: what is the appropriate group of academic employees with whom governance is to be shared, and what are the extent and limits of authority?
1. The answer to the first question is best sought by examining the mission of the American research university. Teaching, research and service are the hallmarks of that mission. At universities such as UF, this tripartite mission is led by a core group of professionals. These are the “tenure track” faculty. They are carefully selected by their peers, subjected to rigorous review procedures for retention and promotion, and given wide latitude in their pursuit of knowledge and in professing and communicating that knowledge to students, academic colleagues and the public. After demonstrating excellence in these three activities, they are “tenured.” Academic freedom protects them from improper sanctions resulting from those pursuits.
Together with their colleagues, these tenure track faculty participate in the design of curricula, research centers, etc. in departments and colleges in partnership with chairs and deans through local models of shared governance. For the same reasons that apply at the departmental and college level, tenure track faculty members are the natural first participants in the broader shared governance processes for the university as a whole. The ranks of those participating in shared governance beyond this core group should be enlarged, if at all, to include only those others whose selection, duties, responsibilities, and promotion criteria are comparable and whose interests are naturally akin to those of the tenure track faculty.
Consequently, the Task Force must define membership in the shared governance unit by title. I propose that the shared governance unit be renamed the Faculty (or Academic) Senate. The Faculty Senate would then elect a Representative Assembly and a Chair representing the faculty as a whole.
2. The description of duties, authorities and responsibilities of the participants in the governance process is the other critical issue to be determined by the Task Force. That determination, again, flows from the mission of the research university and the characteristics of the participants.
While authority for governing the university rests with the Board of Trustees, the members of these boards are not selected for their expertise in conducting the affairs of the university, but for their ability to serve as fiduciaries. One of their primary functions is to see that the university is well organized to carry out its functions. It is therefore, the responsibility of the BOT to delegate to the president and the faculty, to the extent the law permits, those authorities and responsibilities best suited to each, retaining only to itself the authority appropriate to its fiduciary function and as required by law. These delegations, together with the policies protecting such matters as tenure and academic freedom should be provided for constitutionally, assuring that they can be changed only through thoughtful discussion pursuant to established procedures.
As those responsible for furthering the basic tripartite mission of the university, the faculty should be engaged directly in those decisions that are most central to the fulfillment of that mission. If this area of responsibility is carefully defined, the Faculty Senate’s authority in this area can be final or subject only to caveats that make it, for all practical purposes, nearly so. If the Faculty Senate wishes broader authority touching all aspects of university functions, that authority would likely be subject to veto by the President or the Board. I would prefer the former, with ancillary authorities existing in the latter category. While the details of such a list of responsibilities should be the subject of discussion and recommendation by the Task Force, the core items would include approving courses and curriculum, approving the creation and modification of departments, colleges, and other academic units, awarding earned degrees and honorary degrees, and approving admissions policies.
Another equally important category of decisions consists of those within the purview of the administration, but which require prior consultation with the faculty. The items that should be placed in this category by the BOT require further study and discussion, but I would propose they include: budget development and implementation, faculty appointment policies, physical master planning, construction planning and programming; and selection, appointment and review of deans, vice presidents and the President. These consultations need not involve the faculty or representative assembly as a whole, but could, and in many instances probably should, be delegated to committees created for those purposes.
The Senate should also have authority to provide some functions similar to those that would be provided for in a collective bargaining agreement, if one existed. For example, if a faculty union is certified on campus, then terms and conditions of employment including salary matters must be negotiated through the collective bargaining process. However, in the absence of a certified faculty union, salary and wage matters would be dealt with through appropriate Faculty Senate agency dialogue with the administration. Similarly, alleged violations of academic freedom and tenure in actions such as a non-renewal of a faculty appointment should be dealt with through established senate channels rather than by outside agencies as provided for in a collective bargaining agreement.
Since Florida is an administrative rules state, questions have been raised about the role played by the Senate in the approval of rules. Rules and policies dealing with matters covered in the first category should not be adopted without the approval of the Senate. Those in the second should not be adopted without prior consultation as described above.
All matters that do not fall in one of these categories and are not reserved to the BOT would come within the purview of administrative authority, but those involving a “substantial academic impact” should be subject to informal but meaningful discussion with faculty representatives.
What I have described is surely subject to criticism as oversimplification. However, it is based on a simple concept: Universities such as UF should be administered in a collegial fashion. In almost all instances, the administrators responsible for academic decisions (chairs, deans, vice presidents, provosts and presidents) are, and should be, academic colleagues. As I said at the outset, however, a great deal of work lies ahead in resolving the details that will allow it to work in a collegial fashion based on mutual trust. I intend to devote the time and attention necessary to make that happen.
I will be further addressing my views on shared governance at a faculty forum, jointly sponsored by the Faculty Senate, at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 7 in the Reitz Union Auditorium. All are invited to this discussion.