 |
| Log on |
 |
 |
|
|
  |
 |
 |
REPORT OF
THE JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE/
RULES & REVIEW COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP
FOR REVIEW OF THE
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SENATE
March 9, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT OF
THE JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE/
RULES & REVIEW COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP
FOR REVIEW OF THE
VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY SENATE
I. BACKGROUND AND CONTENT OF WORKING GROUP REVIEW - SPRING 1997-FALL 1998
By Resolution dated December 11, 1996, the Board of Trustees charged the University Senate, through its Rules and Review Committee as guided by its Executive Committee, to undertake a thorough review of its functions to determine whether or not changes are advisable.
In order to accomplish this task, the Rules and Review Committee met jointly with the Senate Executive Committee in the Spring of 1997 to formulate a working plan to implement the Board's resolution. Out of these meetings, a consensus emerged that the group should seek input from the various Senate constituencies (faculty, students, administrators, staff and alumni) and should review prior recommendations for change in Senate structures over the years.
Recognizing the complexity of the task, a core group(1) volunteered to work to further this project in the summer of 1997. The summer working group crafted draft General Principles and Recommendations gleaned from its work for presentation to the full Executive and Rules and Review Committee in the Fall of 1997 as follows:
a. Although the principles of subsidiarity should be maintained, it is recommended that the Senate Constitution be modified to require the different schools or units to inform the Senate of all major curricular decisions and actions. Such reporting of informa- tion is necessary to assure compliance with existing standards, to eliminate possible conflict among units, and to provide exchange of ideas.
b. It is recommended that new senators be oriented to the organization and functioning of the University Senate to improve the efficiency of the governance process.
c. It is recommended that faculty participation/representation in University governance should be better defined and strengthened.
d. It is recommended that the tripartite structure of the University Senate be affirmed and strengthened.
e. It is recommended that the University Senate should make more effective use of the committees. Committees assigned a task should report within a certain length of time. The Senate should mandate that, in the absence of emergency, no resolution should be made in the Senate until the matter is fully reviewed by the appropriate committee. Committee Chairs might be added as ex officio members of the Executive Committee of the Senate.
f. It is recommended that some changes should be made in the areas of the Administrative and the Senate Rank & Tenure Committees.
Executive Committee members of the summer working group (including Faculty Council Chairperson Dr. Lowell Gustafson and Student Government President Eric Quisenberry) continued to meet with the full Rules and Review Committee through the Fall and Spring semesters. Taking into account the demands of the task, the working group agreed to meet frequently to move the matter forward.
The group(2) met on the following dates during academic year 1997-98:
The group examined recommendations and background information concerning University governance including the following:
1. The Summer Working Group recommendations (Summer 1997)
2. Report on the Evaluation of Governance at Villanova University by Esin Kaya-Carton dated March 1987
3. Evaluation of the Villanova University Senate 1981-1986 by the Rules and Review Committee dated April 1988
4. Recommendations for the Villanova Institutional Self Study for the Middle States Review dated 1990
5. Survey Report prepared by the Office for Planning and Institutional Research on the Villanova University Senate - Faculty and Staff Perceptions of Senate Activities and Effectiveness formulated by the Rules and Review Committee and dated June 1997
6. Present Organization and Committee Structure of the Villanova University Senate prepared by Dorothy A. Malloy dated June 1997
7. Ten Year Record of University Senate Attendance, Motions, Legislation and Recommendations prepared by student members of the Rules & Review Committee in the Spring of 1997
8. Document entitled "For a Unified Faculty Voice in University Governance" prepared by Dr. Robert W. Langran and Dr. Harry R. Strack dated April 15, 1997 and results of a faculty referendum on this proposal
9. Document entitled "Faculty Governance Proposal" dated February 21, 1998 prepared by Dr. John R. Johannes in consultation with the current and past chairs of the Faculty Council, the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the authors of "For a Unified Faculty Voice in University Governance"
10. The President's Address to the University Senate on November 14, 1997
11. Revised Faculty Governance Proposal
12. Memorandum dated March 12, 1998 from Edward Cunningham, President, Villanova Alumni Association to Selma Wunderlich of the Rules & Review Committee as reviewed in a working group session with Robert Capone and Selma Wunderlich, alumni representatives on the Rules and Review Committee
13. Student Government Recommendations to Strengthen the University Senate as reviewed in a Working Group session with Ken Racowski, student representative to the Rules and Review Committee
14. Memorandum dated November 5, 1997 from Mary Quilter and Susan Hill, staff University Senators, to the Rules and Review Committee regarding staff representation on Senate committees
15. Written summaries of views of individual members of the Working Group as submitted to the Working Group
16. Memorandum dated December 14, 1998 from the Dean of the Law School to the Chair of the Committee
17. Evaluation of the Athletic Advisory Committee, University Senate, Spring 1991
The group considered other means of receiving input from all affected constituencies and scheduled meetings to that end as follows (with intervening meetings utilized for the committee to deliberate and discuss points raised by invited guests):
October 29, 1997 -- Dr. Mariellen Whelan -- Board of Trustees perspective
November 20, 1997 -- Authors of "For a Unified Faculty Voice in University Governance" (Dr. Thomas Greene, Dr. Rodger Van Allen, Dr. Robert W. Langran and Dr. Harry R. Strack) and Dr. John R. Johannes -- faculty perspective
December 10, 1997 -- Dr. Louise Fitzpatrick (Dean, College of Nursing), Dr. Mark Sargent (Dean, School of Law), Dr. John R. Johannes (VPAA) -- Deans' perspectives
February 27, 1998 -- Dr. John R. Johannes, Vice President for Academic Affairs, for review of new proposal for faculty governance formulated by Dr. Johannes in consultation with the current and past chairs of the Faculty Council, the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the authors of "For a Unified Faculty Voice in University Governance"
March 20, 1998 -- Robert Capone and Selma Wunderlich (alumni representatives on the Rules and Review Committee) -- Alumni perspectives
March 27, 1998 -- Ken Racowski (student representative on the Rules and Review Committee) -- Student perspectives
All documents reviewed as a part of the group's work may be found in the Appendix to this Report.
A summer working group(3) again volunteered to continue the work of the full group in the summer of 1998. This summer group met on June 2, June 12, June 18, August 20 and September 2, 1998, to deliberate at length and to formulate a draft report for review with the entire working group in the Fall of 1998. The summer working group divided the drafting task into sections with 2-3 members responsible for initial drafting of each Section of the Report. The group initially circulated the draft in July of 1998 and re-circulated it in the Fall of 1998 for further review by the working group and the full Rules & Review Committee. All members of the Rules and Review Committee were invited to subsequent meetings of the working group. The working group met again on September 16, September 28, October 14, November 11, December 2 and December 21, 1998 and January 25, February 4, February 18, and February 26, 1999. The Committee recirculated the draft Report in February of 1999 to the group and the full Rules and Review Committee.
In the text of this report the full working group (consisting of the Rules and Review Committee and those members of the Executive Committee who met with Rules and Review) is referred to as the "Committee."
II. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
In order (a) to assure that major questions of University policy affecting several constituencies in a significant way may be addressed in a respected forum representative of all elements of the University community; (b) to maintain and enhance the benefits of close, continuous and direct interaction between faculty and administration on faculty matters and between students and administration on student matters; and (c) to maintain and enhance the tradition and reality of community governance in the spirit of the University's mission statement, the Committee recommends a restructuring of the University Senate as shown in Figure 1 attached to this Report. The new structure represents the Committee's efforts to retain the finest aspects of the existing structure while recognizing the need for real change in order to increase community involvement in, and respect for, a revitalized and streamlined governance structure. The new structure enhances the voices of all constituencies while recognizing the unique and different role of each. The proposed structure retains the existing numbers of representatives from each constituency in the full Senate (13 faculty, 13 students, 13 administrators, 2 alumni, 2 staff) while making important changes in committee composition, structure and authority.
Specifically, the new structure changes the nature, composition and administration of University Senate Committees dealing with faculty and academic policy. A new Faculty Assembly/ Committee on Faculty, merging the Faculty Council and the former Faculty Affairs Committee, addresses issues of faculty welfare and consists solely of faculty members. The Academic Policy Committee is retained with a significant increase in faculty representation to 18 elected faculty and the addition of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Director of the Library as ex-officio members. The Rank and Tenure Committee is deleted as a standing committee of the Senate to recognize the purely academic role of this working committee in the University structure and to streamline the University Senate. In addition to the existing direct reporting line for University Senate business to the Executive Committee of the Senate, both the Faculty Assembly/ 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 an informational reporting obligation to the Senate Executive Committee) with respect to purely/primarily faculty matters. Elections for faculty Senators and faculty members on the Academic Policy Committee and the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty are administered by the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty. All faculty serving on the University Senate, the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty and the Academic Policy Committee are elected directly by the faculty and apportioned by constituency. In order to enhance the cohesiveness of the faculty voice and to have the benefit of faculty leaders in the University Senate, the Committee recommends that all faculty members who are University Senators (except the Law School faculty senator) also serve either on the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty or the Academic Policy Committee. The Committee also recommends that no faculty member serve on both the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty and the Academic Policy Committee. Faculty continue to be represented on all of the other remaining committees of the University Senate. Moreover, the Committee 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 Committee further recommends that the Chair of the University Senate serve as the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Senate.
With respect to students and student life matters, the new structure replaces the former Student Life Committee with a Committee on Student Life/Student Government. The Student Body Vice President is newly included as an ex officio member of the Committee with the Student Government President. In addition to the existing direct reporting line for University Senate business to the Executive Committee of the Senate, this Committee has an explicitly recognized direct line to the Vice President for Student Life, and through the Vice President for Student Life to the President (with an informational reporting obligation to the Senate Executive Committee) with respect to purely/primarily student matters.
The initial determination as to whether a matter is purely/primarily a faculty or student matter rests within the discretion of the respective Senate Committee. The Academic and Student Life Vice Presidents and the President, of course, 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.
The new structure adds two staff members to the Rules and Review Committee (one being the Recording Secretary as an ex-officio non-voting member), the Athletic Advisory Committee and the Committee on Mission and Social Justice and one staff member to the Budget Committee and the Student Life/Student Government Committee, increasing staff participation in the multipartite Senate.
The new structure includes the President of the Alumni Association as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Senate to further communication between the Senate and the University's alumni and continues to include alumni representation on the Rules and Review Committee, the reconstituted Committee on Mission and Social Justice, the Budget Committee, the Athletic Advisory Committee and the Student Life/Student Government Committee.
The committee structure is streamlined to better reflect the reality of University decision-making and to make the Senate a more efficient governing tool. The proposal eliminates as standing committees the Rank and Tenure Committee, the Faculty Affairs Committee (replaced by the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty), and the Planning and Priorities Committee. The proposal recasts the Social Action Committee as the Committee on Mission and Social Justice with a somewhat different charge. The proposal recasts the Student Life Committee as the Student Life/Student Government Committee with the direct line to the Vice President for Student Life previously described.
The University Administrative Planning and Budget Committee ("UPBC"), although not a Senate committee, has a new informational reporting relationship to the University Senate and a stronger consultative relationship to the Senate Budget Committee to reflect the reality that planning and budget matters lie with UPBC and ought to be better coordinated with the Senate's Budget Committee. The Proposal significantly increases the Senate's interaction with the UPBC through more frequent reports to the full Senate and greater consultative interaction with the Budget Committee earlier in the annual budget process.
The proposal urges the increased and better use of ad-hoc committees of the Senate for important and discrete community matters as they may arise. The Committee sees great advantage to utilizing an ad-hoc committee consisting of knowledgeable and interested members to work on tasks of finite duration on a quick time-line for a more responsive Senate.
Finally, to enhance communication, efficiency and accountability, the Committee recommends that the Executive Committee include the Chairs of each standing Senate Committee as non-voting, ex-officio members to be present at certain of the regular meetings of the Executive Committee.
III. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF CONCLUSIONS
A. MAJOR QUESTIONS OF POLICY ADDRESSED IN A RESPECTED, REPRE-SENTATIVE COMMUNITY FORUM
(i) Major Questions of Policy
(a) The Committee concluded that the Senate should address only major questions of University policy which affect several constituencies in a significant way. To this end, the Committee formulated direct lines from certain committees to University Vice Presidents for purely/primarily student or faculty matters. It is expected that many issues may often be handled through these direct lines from Senate Committees. The Committee also focused on the need for the Senate to address major issues of institutional policy, culture, philosophy and mission rather than undertaking the detailed procedural implementation arising out of the Senate's broad direction and advice to the University administration. The Committee judged that some of the frustration expressed to us about the Senate stemmed from the Senate's misplaced efforts to detail complex procedures, a task for which a large, multi-representative body is ill-suited. The Committee also determined that the inconsistency in the existing Constitution in terming Senate actions "legislation" as to some matters (academic matters, faculty concerns and student life) and "recommendations" as to other matters (athletic policy, social concern) should be eliminated. The Committee suggests that the term "legislate" be used for Senate action in all areas within its jurisdiction under its Constitution. The Committee thus recommends the following changes to the Senate Constitution addressing the authority of the Senate as in Article III, "Powers and Responsibilities of the University Senate," viz.:
(Underlining shows language added to existing Constitution)
Section 1: "The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in major academic matters significantly affecting more than one college of the University and significantly affecting more than one represented constituency of the Senate. These matters are noted in the areas of committee concern under the Academic Policy Committee (Article VIII, Section 2).
Section 2: "The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of faculty concern significantly affecting the University as a whole.
Section 3: "The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of student life significantly affecting the University as a whole."
Section 4: Budget Committee. This section would be revised to reflect the enhanced role of the consultative process between this committee and the UPBC. (See Section III (D) (iv)).
Section 5: (Long-range institutional planning) Delete, as it is subsumed in the new relationship between the Senate, its Budget Committee and the UPBC.
Section 6: (Priorities) Delete, same as above.
Section 7: (Fund raising) Delete, same as above.
Section 8: The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of University policy regarding mission and social justice affecting the University as a whole.
Section 9: Athletic Advisory Committee The University Senate shall have authority to legislate in all major areas of University policy regarding athletics affecting the University as a whole.
(ii) A Respected Forum
In arriving at the conclusions regarding the Committee's charge, we solicited input from all constituencies which included faculty, students, staff, alumni, administration and trustees to ascertain the activities and effectiveness of the University Senate.
Board of Trustees' Concerns - At its December 1996 meeting, the Board of Trustees charged the University Senate through its Rules and Review Committee as guided by its Executive Committee to undertake a thorough review of its functions to determine whether or not changes are advisable. In an effort to gain a clearer perspective of the Trustees' position, the Board Secretary and Chair of the Planning Committee was invited by and addressed the Committee. She explored various aspects of University governance:
Survey - As one part of this evaluation, a survey was conducted for all full-time and part-time employees of the University, including administrators, faculty and staff, and alumni who had previously served as representatives to the Senate.
Survey Results - Data suggest that the majority of respondents felt that the Senate was ineffective in meeting its charges and responsibilities. Staff consistently perceive the Senate to be more effective than do faculty, and faculty perceive the Senate to be most effective when dealing with student life and related concerns. Faculty, however, find the Senate least effective when dealing with faculty concerns regarding University-wide policy issues.
Faculty Dissatisfaction - Faculty Senate/Council presented a document to the Committee which had been approved by the Faculty Senate/Council and the Faculty Affairs Committee for consideration. This document, For a Unified Faculty Voice in University Governance, outlined three areas of concern regarding the University Senate.
1. The multiplicity of faculty governance bodies with highly overlapping functions (University Senate, Faculty Senate/Council, Faculty Affairs Committee, Academic Policy Committee, and University Rank and Tenure Committee) tends to dilute the importance of true representation of the faculty. Consideration needs to be given to merging some groups to eliminate the overlaps in functioning.
2. Lack of meaningful communication and coordination between faculty representatives and their constituents, between faculty representatives and University administration and among faculty representatives themselves. Consideration needs to be given to change existing committee structures in such a way as to unify, centralize and strengthen the focus of faculty input.
3. Faculty at Villanova are generally disinclined to involve themselves in governance matters (outside the department level). Faculty need to be encouraged to recognize that their participation in governance is equivalent to educational leadership and is an important part of their commitment to the institution. It was also noted that faculty need to recognize the strong link between governance and academic freedom.
Student Perspective - Students on the Committee expressed a major concern with presenting their proposals to the Senate for action, citing ineffectiveness and delay of resolving issues. They stated that their presence at the University was normally a four-year period and they need the University Senate to be more responsive and expeditious in resolving their issues after sufficient study has been completed. They also stated that students who are members of Senate Committees need to be full and responsive participants on the various issues brought forth.
New Multipartite Governance Structure - After considerable examination of the purpose and historical context for the development of the University Senate, the Committee discussed changes in the governance structure to better reflect the significant contribution of the University Senate thus far, the strategic planning process underway, and the Mission Statement's support of the twin principles of collegiality and cooperation as the focal points for the structure of governance of the University. Clearly, Villanova University's Mission Statement sets in place a praxis for the new structure . . . It seeks to involve all constituencies through appropriate structures of governance.
This plan provides for a structure which strengthens the decision-making processes of the University Senate to accomplish three major goals:
a. To strengthen formal commitment to the University Senate by recognizing appropriate representation from all constituencies of the University.
b. To strengthen the effectiveness of the University Senate by streamlining committee structures in a more meaningful way to better reflect the present milieu and culture of the University, and
c. To strengthen and renew our spirit, purpose, cooperation, and responsibility, recognizing the value and input of all members of the University community as ideas and plans are integrated into a unified context of governance.
(i) Direct line from faculty committees to VPAA
The proposed governance structure includes a direct line of communication between the VPAA and the Senate's predominantly faculty committees (Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty and Academic Policy Committee). Since the VPAA is charged with the responsibility for dealing with matters involving faculty concerns (i.e., academic matters), a direct line of communication can serve several useful functions: Those matters within the special competence of the faculty [e.g., rank and tenure policies and related matters of faculty status such as appointments, reappointments, promotion and dismissal] may be dealt with directly without the need to bring them before the full Senate. Confidentiality can be maintained where necessary (e.g., for individual personal matters, disputes among faculty, faculty grievances). On matters where action by the full Senate is not necessary, a direct line to the VPAA can lead to greater speed and efficiency in their resolution. The communication line can be used in both directions so that the VPAA can get feedback from the faculty on proposed actions.
Under this proposal, the Academic Policy Committee would have the authority to recommend policy for the University in academic matters affecting more than one college. The Committee, as it deems appropriate and depending on weightiness and university-wide impact, could forward its recommendations either to the full Senate through its Executive Committee or, as to purely/ primarily faculty matters only, through the VPAA to the President. However, the Academic Policy Committee would communicate all formal committee recommendations in writing to the Executive Committee. 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.
The Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty would have the authority to formulate recommendations in all faculty welfare matters. At the discretion of the Committee their recommendations may be sent, as to purely/primarily faculty matters only, directly to the President through the VPAA or, as to all other matters, presented to the full Senate through its Executive Committee for discussion and further action. In the former case, the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty would communicate all formal committee recommendations in writing to the Executive Committee. 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.
(ii) Direct line from Student Committee to Vice President for Student Life
The most substantial benefit of the direct line from the Student Life/Student Government Senate Committee to the Vice President for Student Life is information. This connection allows administration to hear issues directly. It gives the Vice President a firsthand view of the priorities, goals, and issues of the students. It also allows for collaboration of ideas. Through this collaboration, the Vice President is able to give direction, explain past history of events, and set agendas with the students. The Vice President is able to share a broader long-term view of the issue as opposed to the short-term view of the students. This association also gives an opportunity for students to learn and improve leadership skills. Above all else, this direct line facilitates relationship building between administration and students, as well as an increase in student voice. As in the past, this Committee would have jurisdiction to formulate policy for the Senate on matters concerning the general social and cultural welfare of all students of the University. Specific non-classroom matters of concern to this committee would include but not be limited to counseling opportunities for work and self-help, a code of students' rights and responsibilities, student political activity and organizations, student publications and broadcasts, and extracurricular activities. This Committee may make recommendations to the Athletic Advisory Committee with respect to intramural athletics.
At the discretion of the Committee, matters that are purely/primarily student concerns only could be directed to the Vice President for Student Life and through that Vice President to the President. The Student Life/Student Government Committee would communicate all formal committee recommendations in writing to the Executive Committee. All recommendations to the Vice President for Student Life (or through the Vice President for Student Life to the President) would receive a response within a reasonable time with a rationale for the action taken.
In the event that a direct line committee appropriately using its direct line within its purview receives a negative response from the President, the committee may raise the matter with faculty or student representatives (as the case may be) of the appropriate committee of the University's Board of Trustees with the request the matter be raised at a Board committee meeting. Only matters considered by the full University Senate (not direct line matters) would be forwarded to the Board of Trustees under Article X of the Senate Constitution.
(i) Extension of committee representation to staff.
The two newly seated staff University Senators requested that the Rules & Review Committee investigate the possibility of staff membership on various Senate committees.
This matter was first discussed at the March 27, 1998 meeting of the Committee and at subsequent Committee meetings. The results of these discussions were that staff membership on Senate Standing Committees would parallel that of the alumni on those committees that remain as Standing Committees of the Senate. The Committee recommends that two staff members be added to the Rules and Review Committee, the Athletic Advisory Committee and the Committee on Mission and Social Justice. The Committee further recommends that one staff member be added to the Budget Committee and the Student Life/Student Government Committee. The Committee judged these standing committees most appropriate for direct staff input through a representative member.
Staff committee terms would parallel those of the alumni and be for two or three year terms depending on the Committee. The Mission and Social Justice Committee, Athletic Advisory Committee, Rules and Review Committee and Student Life/Student Government Committee appointments are for two years; the Budget Committee appointment is for a three year term. The Recording Secretary of the Senate would sit ex-officio (non-voting) on the Rules & Review Committee as one of the two staff members as this committee discusses matters for which a thorough knowledge of the Constitution is necessary as well as the procedures in the Senate office such as elections, past precedents for disputes that may come before the committee, past Senate legislation, etc.
A listing of the committee seats that are open for nominations would be sent concurrently with the solicitation for nominations for election of the two Staff Senators. Staff elections to the Athletic Advisory Committee, Rules & Review Committee, Committee on Mission and Social Justice and the Student Life/Student Government Committee seats will be held at the same time as the election of the two Staff Senators. Solicitation for staff members nominated for committee seats will result in a ballot sent to the exempt and non-exempt staff with all Senate and committee candidates listed. The ballots will be returned to the Human Resources Department for determination of the successful candidates. Notification will be sent from the Human Resources Department to these candidates. Every third year the election for the staff Budget Committee member will be held. Other interested staff members, chosen from the list of those who volunteered for the Senate and committee election, would be appointed by the Senate Executive Committee to ad hoc committees as the need arose.
(ii) Enhancement of alumni representation.
The Villanova Alumni Association's mission statement of February 1998 states, in part, that the Association "is committed to fostering a lifelong relationship between our members and the University community by providing opportunities for dialogue, sharing knowledge, volunteer services, social interaction and philanthropy." The alumni are partners in the University community, and as such, their leadership representative can contribute effectively to the governance of the University Senate.
Therefore, in order to enhance the alumni representation and participation of the University Senate's largest constituency, the Committee recommends that, in addition to the two elected alumni senators, the President of the Alumni Association serve as an ex-officio non-voting member of the University Senate.
(iii) Positive aspects of community governance.
Affirms Article IV, Section 1, the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., the University Senate is restricted in its legislation to those matters enumerated in Article III which affect more than one college of the University. This principle allows for the autonomy of individual colleges and for each constituency in the conduct of their affairs. It also sets limits on intervention by entities that are not directly affected by the decisions they make. The principle of subsidiarity aims at harmonizing the relationships between the University Senate and various constituencies.
The proposed restructuring of the University Senate provides that all three major constituencies will continue to be equally represented in the full Senate, i.e., thirteen senators each from administration, faculty and students.
At the same time, the changes in structure recommended by the Committee recognize the valid need of a particular constituency to have a stronger voice on certain matters. For example, the new line of communication to be established between the Faculty Assembly/Committee on Faculty and the Vice President for Academic Affairs will help insure that faculty concerns are heard and appropriate administrative decisions made. Similarly, the significant faculty majority on the Academic Policy Committee supports the symbolic and politically important nature of faculty participation in formulation of academic policy that the faculty rightly seeks. The same is true with respect to other enhancements addressed to the needs of other constituencies.
Another positive aspect of the present form of community governance is the committee system in which members of the community other than Senators are encouraged to participate. The elimination of certain committees as suggested herein will strengthen the remaining committees as their charges and goals will be more clearly defined. This restructuring will eliminate the feeling that some committee work is superfluous or is being accomplished by other entities on campus. Participation in Senate committee work should thus appeal to a broader number of faculty, students, administrators, staff and alumni.
The retention of the power of the Senate to legislate in major areas of student life affecting the University as a whole, in major academic matters affecting more than one college of the University, and some faculty matters (while leaving purely/primarily faculty or student matters to the appropriate faculty or student committees), should lead to a gradual recognition of the University Senate as taking the leading role of an open forum which discusses general matters of interest to the campus community. Decisions can thus be based on sound information collected and analyzed in the collegial process that is part of the Strategic direction found in the document "A Future of Promise, A Future of Excellence."
(iv) Unique to this institution/Consistent with University mission and Augustinian thought.
The multi-partite University Senate as a governing structure incorporating equal representation of faculty, students and administration is unique to Villanova University. It brings together into one deliberative body all of the University's constituencies. As such it reflects the Mission Statement of the University that emphasizes Villanova as a community that seeks to reflect the spirit of St. Augustine by the cultivation of knowledge, by respect for individual differences and by adherence to the principle that mutual love and respect should animate every aspect of University life. It also emulates those characteristics that the colleges and universities sponsored by the Order of St. Augustine should exhibit, viz., [a]n esteem for all persons, both in scholarly endeavors and in personal encounters, and [a] respect for academic freedom which makes open discussion and inquiry possible. Open discussion among scholars and students is intrinsic to inquiry and is in accord with responsible freedom, a central value of the Christian tradition, and of the thought of St. Augustine, himself the great theologian of Christian freedom.(4)
(v) Benefits of experience to students of participation at high level policy debates.
Students who serve as University Senators enjoy a unique experience of participating with faculty, administrators, staff and alumni in formulating and recommending University-wide policies. Through attendance at Senate meetings and its various committee sessions the students observe and share in a forum of data gathering and debate that shapes the future of the University and touches on their own lives as students. Having voice and vote results both in ownership of the process and in a real-time learning of the give-and-take, the vagaries and the positive aspects of participatory government by committee.
The student senators learn firsthand about and practice organizational skills, principles of group dynamics, team-building, shared responsibility for collaboration and are able to both observe effective leadership in others and practice leadership skills themselves. They also learn how to debate and contribute to decisions involving persons of various ages, experiences, educational training and levels of responsibility.
In short, the students learn how to be an effective, involved and contributing adult - learning that will carry over into their post college lives.
(vi) Benefits of required presence of University administrators to address other constituencies and hear their concerns first-hand.
The administrative senators both contribute to and benefit from Senate participation. The administrators are usually the most informed and up to date on University plans, budgets and general management issues. Hardly a question arises or data requested that could not be immediately addressed by the appropriate administrator.
On the other hand, the administrators have the benefit of experiencing first hand and entering into dialog with faculty, students, staff and alumni concerning policies and plans that are under consideration. It is this dialog that hopefully results in quality decisions being reached.
The predictability of the schedule of meetings and assurance of the presence of each constituency gives reassurance to all University members that dialog and consensus will take place before decisions are finalized.
Specifically, the administrative Senators:
1. Bring data and perspective to all discussions;
2. Make "those administrators" take on flesh and blood as real persons with faces, voices, intellects and feelings;
3. Further, the administrators hear first hand the perspective of faculty, student, staff and alumni views different from their own and are able to ask questions and dialog about issues that are contentious or complicated - thereby facilitating consensus formation.
(vii) Importance of a check on administrative action.
In the spirit of community, all segments of the University should be kept informed on a timely basis of actions taken (or declined) by the administration in response to Senate resolutions or requests. In the spirit of collegiality, the position of the administration on any pending actions should be made clear to the entire University community. The Senate Constitution accomplishes these goals while providing the Senate the opportunity to be a sounding board for policy, a conscience of the community, and a check on community consensus through its connection to the administration and its full representation of all University constituencies.
(viii) Importance of connection between the University Senate and the University's Board of Trustees.
The new government structure retains the Senate's authority to take matters to the Board of Trustees and obtain a timely response in the same manner as previously applied. The Committee appreciates the Board's continuing and genuine interest in University governance and believes that the heightened interest sparked by the Board's facilitation of this review will contribute to a revitalized Senate.
(i) As noted by the 1997-98 Student Body President, to students the most important thing about the Senate and the University is open communication. The Committee seeks to further this goal by suggesting a Senate newsletter in addition to the publication of the minutes of meetings to the community.
(ii) Upon recommendation of the Committee, the Senate changed the time of Senate meetings for academic year 1998-1999 to better facilitate debate. This has met with general approval and resulted in better attendance at the meetings.
(iii) The Committee suggests the following changes to Article VIII, Section 8, formerly headed "The Social Action Committee":
THE COMMITTEE ON MISSION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE - The Committee on Mission and Social Justice shall be charged with responsibility for recommending to the Senate changes in University policies in areas of mission, social concern, service, and sensitivity to cultural diversity related to the functioning of Villanova University. It shall report its recommendations directly to the Executive Committee.
(iv) The Committee suggests the following changes to Article VIII, Section 4 (Budget Committee):
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE -The Budget Committee shall monitor the development of the University Budget, not on an audit-type or a line-by line review of all expenditures, but rather to make certain that major allocations of funds among the colleges, schools, activities and major interests of the University are in accord with University policies, priorities and resources.
The Budget Committee shall, as early as possible, in each budgetary year, establish and maintain continuous liaison with the Administrative group designated by the President to formulate the University Budget (currently the University Administrative Planning & Budget Committee or "UPBC"). The UPBC shall report its activities through the Budget Committee to the Executive Committee for inclusion on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Senate until such time as the budget is formally acted upon by the Senate. The Budget Committee shall immediately notify the Executive Committee of any proposed allocations that are not in accord with University policies, priorities and resources. The UPBC and the Budget Committee shall jointly update the full Senate with respect to the status of budget formulation at least ___ times per academic year.
The Budget Committee shall consist of three administrators, three faculty, three students, one staff member and one alumni.
[Selection of committee members to be set forth in detail in revised Senate Constitution.]
(v) References to the Law School in the Senate Constitution and By-Laws are retained (number of student and faculty representatives, associated status/limited jurisdiction). The Memorandum to the Subcommittee on the School of Law of the Villanova Special Commission on University Governance, however, will not be reprinted with the next reprinting of the Senate Constitution and Bylaws. This document will be referenced in the Senate governing documents and retained in the official records of the University Senate but need not be set forth in detail in the Senate booklet. These decisions are based upon the input from the Law School as solicited by the Working Group and the Group's deliberations.
(vi) The Committee confirmed the following tentative summer working group recommendations from the summers of 1997 and 1998:
a. Although the principles of subsidiarity should be maintained, it is recommended that the Senate Constitution be modified to require the different schools or units to inform the Senate of all major curricular decisions and actions. Such reporting of information is necessary to assure compliance with existing standards, to eliminate possible conflict among units, and to provide exchange of ideas.
b. It is recommended that new senators be oriented to the organization and functioning of the University Senate to improve the efficiency of the governance process.
c. It is recommended that the Senate invite all committee members to Senate meetings and provide committee members with a schedule of all Univer-sity Senate meetings.
d. It is recommended that the University Senate should make more effective use of the committees. Committees assigned a task should report within a certain length of time. The Senate should mandate that, in the absence of emergency, no resolution should be made in the Senate until the matter is fully reviewed by the appropriate committee. Committee Chairs should be added as ex officio, non-voting members of the Executive Committee of the Senate.
The Joint Executive Committee/Rules and Review Committee Working Group and the Rules and Review Committee recommend that this report, and all recommended and associated constitutional changes, be adopted. The Committee further recommends that a summer working group redraft the University Senate Constitution and Bylaws consistent with this report for presentation to the University Senate in the Fall of 1999.
The Committee thanks all of the individuals and representatives of University constituencies who provided their perspectives and suggestions to us in the course of our work.
1. Consisting of Rev. Kail C. Ellis, O.S.A., Dean of Arts & Sciences (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Helen K. Lafferty, University Vice President (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Dr. Michael Spritzer, Faculty Member, Chemistry Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Susan Mackey-Kallis, Faculty Member, Communication Arts (1997-98 Senate Chairperson); Dr. Richard A. Neville, Vice President for Student Life (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Dr. Javad Siah, Faculty Member, Physics Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dorothy A. Malloy, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel (Chair, Rules & Review Committee); Eric Quisenberry, Student Government President (Member, Senate Executive Committee), Mrs. Rose O'Driscoll, Assistant Dean, College of Nursing (Member, Rules & Review Committee); and Mrs. Carolyn Lea, Recording Secretary for the Senate Executive Committee.
2. The 1997-1998 academic year working group participants were: Mr. Bob Capone, Alumnus and Executive Director, Wildcat Club (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Mr. Tom Christiano, Student (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Rev. Kail C. Ellis, O.S.A., Dean of Arts & Sciences (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Jim Fee, Faculty Member, Accountancy Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Lowell Gustafson, Faculty Member, Political Science Dept. (Faculty Council Chairperson); Dr. Helen K. Lafferty, University Vice President (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Mrs. Carolyn Lea, Recording Secretary for the Senate Executive Committee; Dorothy A. Malloy, Esquire, Vice President and General Counsel (Chair, Rules & Review Committee); Mrs. Rose O'Driscoll, Assistant Dean, College of Nursing (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Richard A. Neville, Vice President for Student Life (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Mr. Eric Quisenberry, 1997-98 Student Government President (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Mr. Ken Racowski, 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); Mrs. Selma Wunderlich, Alumna (Member, Rules & Review Committee)
3. The summer working group for 1998 consisted of Nicole Douglas, Student Government President (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Rev. Kail C. Ellis, O.S.A., Dean of Arts & Sciences (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Helen K. Lafferty, University Vice President (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Dr. Richard A. Neville, Vice President for Student Life (Member, Senate Executive Committee); Dr. Michael Spritzer, Faculty Member, Chemistry Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dr. Javad Siah, Faculty Member, Physics Dept. (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Dorothy A. Malloy, Esq., Vice President and General Counsel (Chair, Rules & Review Committee); Mrs. Rose O'Driscoll, Assistant Dean, College of Nursing (Member, Rules & Review Committee); Mrs. Selma Wunderlich, Alumna (Member, Rules & Review Committee), and Mrs. Carolyn Lea, Recording Secretary for the Senate Executive Committee.
4. Augustinian Sponsorship of Institutions of Higher Education, Province of St. Thomas of Villanova, Approved by the Council of the Province, 7 April 1995.
Contact Webmaster
Last Modified: Wed Aug 21 01:36:47 GMT-05:00 2002
Privacy Statement
© Copyright 2005
Villanova University