C:\MyFiles\FACSEN\Final Proposal\FACGUIDE.htm

Log on

THE NEW GOVERNANCE PLAN

THE FINAL GUIDE FOR THE FACULTY

January 24, 2000

This guide was prepared by Harry R. Strack, member of University Senate Executive Committee and Joint Executive Committee/Rules & Review Committee Working Group for Review of the Villanova University Senate.

This guide should not be a substitute for a thorough reading of the entire Governance Report. This guide deals only with matters directly related to the issue of faculty governance.

Introduction

During my eighteen (18) month service (August 1998-January 2000) on the "Working Group" helping to negotiate the new governance plan, I always kept in mind the words of Henry Kissinger: "The policymaker who has to deal with reality learns to seek the best that can be achieved rather than the best that can be imagined." However, in the end, I think we created a plan that is a little better than I imagined was possible. The changes in governance which enhance faculty participation are real and substantive; their accep- tance by the Working Group represents an acknowledgement of the proper and just role that university faculties have traditionally played in the gover- nance of their institutions in the United States. This new governance plan (outlined below) deserves the support of all Villanova faculty.

Structure

University Senate

Representation: no change - 13 faculty, 13 students, 13 administrators, 2 alumni, 2 staff.

Chair: change - chair must now be a faculty member and will now have reduced teaching load.

Functions: change - "authority to legislate in all major areas of faculty concern significantly affecting the University as a

whole." Raises the standard of matters to be legislated;

eliminates list in present Senate Constitution which included

items such as sabbaticals, social and working conditions, duties,

compensation, fringe benefits, etc.

change - the University Senate will no longer administer the

elections of faculty to the Senate, Academic Affairs Committee,

and Committee on Faculty; this function will be transferred to the

new independent "Faculty Body" (name to be determined by that body).

Academic Policy Committee 2.

Representation: change - faculty now have a voting majority of four (4).

Present Situation New Constitution

Faculty............. 11 votes ............. 16 votes

Administration...... 7 votes ............. 5 votes

Students............ 7 votes ............. 7 votes

Also members of the Committee without a vote: one undergraduate student and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Total membership is thus 30.

change - of the 16 faculty members, six (6) must be University Senators.

Functions: change - committee may recommend policy for the University

Senate in major academic matters significantly affecting more than

one college of the University and significantly affecting more than

one represented constituency of the Senate. Now, however, the

Committee has a direct line to the Vice President for Academic

Affairs (for description, see below).

Committee on Faculty

Representation: change - five (5) of the 14 faculty members must be

University Senators. No change - one (1) must be the Vice-Chair of the new "Faculty Body".

Functions: change - committee may recommend policy for the University Senate in all major areas of faculty concern significantly affec- ting the University as a whole. Now, however, the Committee has a

direct line to the Vice President for Academic Affairs (for description, see below).

change - this committee is charged to consult with and advise the

University Rank and Tenure Committee.

Structure: change - committee essentially replaces the present Faculty

Affairs Committee (FAC). Now, however, the Committee has a dual

role: with the Vice President for Academic Affairs sitting as an

ex-officio member, it is a committee of the University Senate;

without the presence of the Vice President, it is also a commit-

tee of the new "Faculty Body."

Rank and Tenure Committee

Structure: change - committee is deleted from the University Senate;

it no longer has student membership when determining policy; the

Senate no longer has any jurisdiction over Rank and Tenure policy.

Committee "Direct Line"

Change - this is an entirely new procedure. As noted above, both the

Academic Policy Committee and the Committee on Faculty have this

function. When a matter is primarily a faculty matter:

1. The Committee on Faculty, when sitting as a Senate Committee,

and the Academic Policy Committee may send their recommendations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) or through the VPAA to the President with the right to expect a response within a reasonable time with a rationale for the action taken. For informational purposes, when the "Direct Line" is used, the Senate Executive Committee is notified.

2. The determination as to whether a matter is primarily a faculty matter rests within the discretion of the respective Senate

Committee. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the

President retain their prerogative to seek full Senate review

of matters so directed to them. If this action is taken, it

would be to have the full Senate discuss the matter only.

Important notes: (a) The Senate shall take no official legisla-

tive action with respect to a matter until that matter has been fully reviewed and reported upon by the appropriate committee of the Senate, unless two-thirds of the members of the Senate pre- sent and voting resolve to override this committee requirement.

(b) All language appearing in an earlier draft of the proposed

new University Senate Constitution which obnubilated or obfu- scated and confined or circumscribed the phrase "primarily faculty matters" was eliminated and does not appear in the final

draft of the new University Senate Constitution. The respective

committees, themselves, determine which matters are eligible for "direct line" action.

3. In the event of a negative response from the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the committees may forward the matter directly to the President. In the event of a negative response from the President, the committees may raise the matter with faculty

representatives on the appropriate committee of the Board of

Trustees with the request the matter be raised at a Board

committee meeting. [Note: for all faculty matters originating in the Committee on Faculty and Academic Policy Committee, the

appropriate Board committee would be the Committee on Academic

Affairs, on which currently sit two faculty members].

Summary: The above represents a double appeals process: from the

VPAA to the President; from the President to the Board committee.

New "Faculty Body"

Notes: This body shall choose its name when it forms.

This body will be the successor organization to the

Faculty Assembly/Council/Senate.

This body is described in the proposed new University

Senate Constitution as being "independent."

Since this body "may express faculty opinion on any matter

of interest to the faculty," the Organizational Chart

accompanying the new University Senate Constitution will

show a "consultative line" to the Vice President for

Academic Affairs (informal, no reply required).

Representation: change - this body will have the following membership:

a. 14 faculty members of the Committee on Faculty

b. 16 faculty members of the Academic Policy Committee

c. Such other faculty members as the "Faculty Body" shall determine

in its discretion

no change - the Chair of this body will be an ex officio member of

the University Senate; its Vice Chair shall be an ex officio member of the Committee on Faculty.

Note: Because the 30 faculty serving by virtue of their membership

on the above two committees are already chosen by college or, in

the case of Arts & Sciences, by units within a college, it means

that the new "Faculty Body" will have broad representation.

Functions: change - as noted above, this body will be responsible for

administering all elections of faculty to the University Senate,

the Academic Policy Committee and the Committee on Faculty. [Note:

Traditionally, the Administration has had a budget line for finan-

cial support for the Faculty Assembly/Council/Senate to support

a staff position - i.e., recording secretary - and to supplement

its general budget, part of which was financed by the collection

of faculty dues. Certainly, since the new "Faculty Body" is the successor organization to the above listed organizations and it has the added electoral responsibilities, the financial support from the Administration ought to continue.]

Centralization of Faculty Governance

Structure:

11 elected faculty on University Senate + faculty member elected from Law School + chair of new Faculty Body (Total = 13)

5 of 12 elected must also be on the Committee on Faculty.

6 of 11 elected must also be on the Academic Policy Committee

(Law School does not have representation on committee).

1 of 14 faculty members on Committee on Faculty must be the Vice-Chair of the new Faculty Body.

All 14 faculty members on Committee on Faculty must be members of the new Faculty Body.

All 16 faculty members on Academic Policy Committee must be

members of the new Faculty Body.

Implications of New Structure:

Assuming no faculty senator wishes to be on both the Committee on Faculty and the Academic Policy Committee (although this is not prohibited by the proposed new University Senate Constitu- tion), then 11 of the 12 faculty elected to the University Senate will also be members of one University Senate Committee and the new Faculty Body. One election will result in member- ship on three (3) governance bodies. Eleven (11) individuals will hold thirty-three (33) positions.

Implementation of Elections:

Two-stage election process - first stage would involve election of

12 Faculty Senators at one time within respective constituency.

As soon as possible after that election, those senators would be

polled as to the committee(s) on which they would like to serve.

This could be done within a faculty caucus.

After the choices are made, there would be a second stage election

for those constituencies on the two committees not already filled.

Thus, 10 of 16 (63%) seats on the Academic Policy Committee and

8 of 14 (57%) seats on the Committee on Faculty will be directly

elected by constituents.

Conclusion: Taking the above into consideration along with the fact that the Chair of the new "Faculty Body" will serve ex officio

on the University Senate and the Vice Chair will serve ex officio

on the Committee on Faculty, the proposed new University Senate

Constitution greatly centralizes and consolidates the faculty role

in University governance as compared to the dispersed and often uncoordinated situation under the current governance scheme.

Faculty Influence Over the University Budget

Change - The University Administrative Planning and Budget Committee

(UPBC) has a new informational reporting relationship to the University Senate and a stronger consultative relationship to the

Senate Budget Committee. The Senate Budget Committee shall establish and maintain continuous liaison with the UPBC.

No Change - The monitoring of the development of the University Budget

will not be an audit-type or a line-by-line review of expenditures.

The faculty representation is not increased on the Budget Committee (it currently stands at 3 out of total of 11 - 27%). No faculty serve on the UPBC. A joint faculty-student resolution recommending

the addition of two faculty and two students to the UPBC was passed

by the University Senate in September 1999 and promptly was vetoed by the University President stating that the UPBC being solely an

administrative working Committee "is critical to its productive

functioning." [source: letter from Father Dobbin to Susan Mackey- Kallis dated October 14, 1999.]

Comment: This is the one disappointing aspect of the proposed new plan

from a faculty perspective.

Change in Attitude of Administration Concerning Faculty

Despite the one disappointment noted above, it is my perception that

there has been a change in Administration and Trustee attitudes with respect to the faculty in general and to the role of faculty in Univer- sity governance.

The evidence is as follows:

1. Lowell Gustafson interviewed Father Dobbin for the Faculty Task

Force of the Middle States self-study in October 1999 and Father

Dobbin said "he would go so far as to affirm that there should be

a significant faculty majority on the Academic Policy Committee of

the University Senate because of the unique perspective that faculty

bring to academic matters." [Source: Report from Lowell Gustafson to Dorothy A. Malloy as reported in I.O.C. dated November 4, 1999, from

the latter to the members of the Rules & Review Committee and the

Working Group.]

2. In his address to the University Senate on November 19, 1999, Father

Dobbin quoted approvingly from a report from the American Council on

Education which "strongly affirms the distinctive role of faculty in

the University. [The report] speaks of the faculty as a source, a

wealth of knowledge and a creative potential." Father Dobbin quoted

directly from the report:

The faculty and all other teachers and researchers are by

far the greatest resource of the university. . . . The

best organized university is worth nothing if it cannot count on a qualified teaching staff.

[Source: Minutes of University Senate of November 19, 1999.]

3. Lowell Gustafson, as chair of the Faculty Senate, and Susan Mackey-

Kallis, as chair of the University Senate, were invited to make presentations to the Board of Trustees at their meeting on Decem-

ber 13, 1999.

4. The Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees recently

undertook a review of their mission and responsibilities. Documents

prepared by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and

Colleges were consulted for the review. Those documents stress the importance of "building bridges" between the Academic Affairs Commit- tee and the faculty. Board members of our Committee have been briefed, in general, about their possible role in the new governance

plan and, from my perspective as a faculty representative to that

Committee, they seemed receptive, gracious, and accommodating.

Comment: Of course, all the evidence presented here is symbolic in nature.

Faculty members ought to be pleased that the Administration and Board are recognizing the vital importance of the faculty in a university and, by deduction, in those aspects of university governance where faculty bring unique perspectives and expertise.

Faculty members ought to expect substance to follow the symbolism.

In the meantime, given all the information presented above in this

report, it is my judgment that Villanova faculty ought to endorse

the new governance plan operationalized in the proposed new Univer-

sity Senate Constitution.

If substance does not follow symbolism, then an entirely different

route may have to be followed by the faculty to ensure their proper

and rightful role in University governance.

GOVERNANCE PLAN - FACULTY ASPECTS

A. Introduction. The Governance Plan now under consideration for Villanova University comes out of a two and one half year process of study, review and consultation undertaken by a Joint Working Group consisting of members of the Executive Committee of the University Senate and the Rules and Review Committee of the University Senate at the formal request of Villanova's Board of Trustees. The Working Group unanimously recommends the new Governance Plan.⁽¹⁾ For the complete Working Group report and the proposed Constitution, please go to the University Senate folder at http://unit.villanova.edu/helpdesk/Newsgroups.htm or request a copy from Dorothy A. Malloy, Vice President and General Counsel, 206 Tolentine Hall, telephone number (610) 519-7857. This brief summary emphasizes those parts of the plan most directly affecting the faculty's role in governance.

B. Consultation. During the course of this review, the following faculty members met at various times with the Working Group in their capacity as members of the Executive Committee or the Rules and Review Committee:

Dr. James Fee, Accountancy Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee)

Dr. Lowell Gustafson, Political Science Dept. (Member, Executive Committee, and Faculty Council/Senate Chairperson)

Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, Communication Arts Dept. (Member, Executive Committee, and University Senate Chairperson)

Mrs. Rose O'Driscoll, School of Nursing (Member, Rules & Review Committee)

Dr. Javad Siah, Physics Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee)

Dr. Michael Spritzer, Chemistry Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee)

Dr. Harry Strack, Political Science Dept. (Member, Executive Committee)

The Working Group also met and consulted with Dr. Thomas Greene, Faculty Member, History Dept.; Dr. Rodger Van Allen, Faculty Member, Theology & Religious Studies Dept.; Dr. Robert W. Langran, Faculty Member, Political Science Dept., and Dr. John R. Johannes, Vice President for Academic Affairs, regarding the faculty's perspective due to their active involvement in governance issues. Dean Kail Ellis, as a member of the Working Group and the Rules and Review Committee, also brought an academic/faculty perspective to the discussions. The Working Group also solicited and received comments from the faculty members of the University Senate (Michael Burke; Timothy Feeman; Lowell Gustafson; Susan Mackey-Kallis; Gaile Pohlhaus, Joseph Schick, Harry Strack, Walter Tymon, Burke Ward) and the Faculty Council/Senate (William J. Barnhurst; Victor Brooks; John D. Caputo; Walter E. Conn; Linda Copel; Rick Eckstein; Trudi Graves; Lowell Gustafson; Karyn Hollis; Michael Hones; Edward Kresch; Michael L. Levitan; Howard Lurie; Harry Strack; Robert Styer; Joyce Willens). The Chair of the Working Group also presented the Governance Plan to a faculty forum open to all faculty and organized by the Faculty Council/Senate held on October 25, 1999. The faculty representatives on the Rules and Review Committee also attended the forum.

C. Structural Change. The new structure changes the nature, composition and administration of University Senate Committees dealing with faculty and academic policy to strengthen the faculty's role while also explicitly recognizing an independent Faculty Body (name to be determined by that body) composed of the faculty members elected to certain University Senate committees and any additional faculty that the independent Faculty Body might choose to include. A new University Senate Committee on Faculty addresses issues of faculty welfare and consists solely of faculty members and the VPAA ex officio. (The VPAA does not sit as a member of the independent Faculty Body which is composed entirely of Faculty members). This Committee's charge will also include consulting with and advising the University Rank & Tenure Committee on policy matters in order to encourage interaction between the two groups and increase faculty representation by including the opinions of faculty of all ranks. The Committee on Faculty will have a dual role as a committee of the University Senate and as a committee of the independent Faculty Body. The Academic Policy Committee is retained as a University Senate Committee with a significant increase in faculty representation to 16 elected faculty, which constitutes a majority. The Rank and Tenure Committee is deleted as a standing committee of the University Senate to recognize the purely academic role of this working committee in the University structure and to streamline the University Senate. Faculty elected to the Committee on Faculty and the Academic Policy Committee are a part of the independent Faculty Body, together with other faculty at the discretion of the independent Faculty Body.

In addition to the existing direct reporting line for University Senate business to the Executive Committee of the Senate, both the Committee on Faculty and the Academic Policy Committee have an explicitly recognized direct line to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and, through the VPAA, to the President with respect to primarily faculty matters. All recommendations to the VPAA (or through the VPAA to the President) would receive a response within a reasonable time with a rationale for the action taken. If the Vice President does not accept a resolution of the Committee using its direct line to the Vice President, then that Committee may forward the resolution directly to the President. In the event that a direct line committee using its direct line access receives a negative response from the President, the committee may raise the matter with faculty representatives of the appropriate committee of the University's Board of Trustees with the request the matter be raised at a Board committee meeting. The determination as to whether a matter is primarily a faculty matter rests within the discretion of the respective Senate Committee. The Academic Vice President and the President retain their prerogative to seek full Senate review of matters so directed to them through a request to the Senate Executive Committee to add a matter to the Senate agenda for discussion.

Under the proposal, the independent Faculty Body administers elections for faculty Senators on the University Senate and faculty members on the Academic Policy Committee and the Committee on Faculty. All faculty serving on the University Senate are elected directly by the faculty and apportioned by constituency. Five of the elected faculty members also serve on the Committee on Faculty and six of the elected faculty members also serve on the Academic Policy Committee in order to enhance the cohesiveness of the faculty voice and to have the benefit of faculty leaders in the University Senate. The remaining members of the Academic Policy Committee and Committee on Faculty are directly elected by the faculty and apportioned by constituency. Faculty continue to be represented on all of the other remaining committees of the University Senate.

The Working Group also recommends that the Chair of the University Senate always be a faculty member with a reduced course load in order to recognize and enhance the faculty leadership which is central to the success of the University Senate. The Working Group further recommends that the Chair of the University Senate serve as the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Senate.

The Working Group believes these changes with respect to faculty address the significant concerns some faculty have raised regarding the present multiplicity of faculty governance bodies with highly overlapping functions (University Senate, Faculty Council/Senate, Faculty Affairs Committee, Academic Policy Committee, and University Rank and Tenure Committee) which may tend to dilute the faculty voice. The new governance plan changes existing committee structures in such a way as to unify, centralize and strengthen the focus of faculty input and provide more streamlined and effective interchange and cooperation with the administration through the direct line to the VPAA and through the VPAA to the President.

At the same time, the Plan fully integrates faculty leadership into every component of the University Senate through faculty representation on all other remaining Senate committees (Executive Committee, Rules & Review Committee, Athletic Advisory Committee, Committee on Mission and Social Justice, Student Life/Student Government Committee and Budget Committee). The Plan charges a faculty member to lead the Senate while retaining a community governance culture with representation of all constituencies (faculty, students, administrators, staff and alumni) continuing in the full University Senate to address major matters of University-wide significance which are not primarily faculty matters.

1. The present full Working Group has the following members: Mr. Steven Antonio, Student (Member, Rules & Review Committee); G. T. Bynum, Student Government President (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Mr. Robert Capone, Alumnus (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Rev. Kail C. Ellis, O.S.A., Dean of Arts & Sciences (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Mr. Bradley Hansell, Student (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Helen K. Lafferty, University Vice President (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Mrs. Carolyn Lea, Recording Secretary for the Senate Executive Committee; Dorothy A. Malloy, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel (Chair, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Kenneth Muske, Faculty Member, Chemical Engineering Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Mrs. Rose O'Driscoll, Assistant Dean, College of Nursing (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Ms. Nicole Romano, Student (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Javad Siah, Faculty Member, Physics Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Michael Spritzer, Faculty Member, Chemistry Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Harry Strack, Faculty Member, Political Science Dept. (Member, Senate Executive Committee); and Mrs. Selma Wunderlich, Alumna (Member, Rules & Review Committee).