Shared governance program created
The ongoing effort to arrange CMU's shared governance has entered the matrix.
The Board of Trustees, the University President, administrators, faculty, staff, students and others may benefit from the matrix, a shared-governance project which was outlined at Thursday's board meeting.
Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Richard Davenport said the matrix approach is a new methodology for clarifying how decisions are made.
"We think this will improve trust in how decisions are made," he said. "It is very time consuming and very costly, in terms of human resources. But I do believe it will culminate in a very positive campus environment."
The matrix was created by CMU's ad-hoc committee on shared governance in response to a report from the North Central Association, CMU's Regional Accreditation Agency. The NCA approved CMU for accreditation in '98, but pointed to the areas of assessment, governance and affirmative action as weaknesses the university must address. The NCA also said there was a lack of trust between the administration and faculty.
During his Nov. 1998 university address, University President Leonard Plachta called the Academic Senate, now in its 31st year at CMU, "cumbersome," "lacking objectivity," "a tired old bureaucracy" and said he was unhappy with the A-Senate's "increasing involvement in university administration." Plachta had even said the A-Senate could be dissolved.
A February 1999 report from the ad-hoc committee on shared governance revealed suggestions from faculty about shared governance. The responses to the committee's survey, from 66 percent of the faculty, showed faculty frustration and low morale regarding the then-current system of shared governance.
The committee's summary of the survey said "Faculty are most likely to believe that the (Academic) Senate should be highly involved with determining the needs and initiatives of the academic division and with deciding to restructure academic departments, and administrators are more likely to be satisfied with the status quo."
The matrix report discussed Thursday outlined categories of responsibilities/decisions, campus decision makers and the decision-making responsibility levels at CMU.
For example, the responsibility of determining the university calendar's class times and days could receive recommendations and formal input from administration/senior staff, the A-Senate and Senate representatives to non-Senate committees. Students could act as representative voting members, the president could make a decision and trustees could be responsible for approving, ratifying or vetoing any decision.
Davenport reminded the trustees that the matrix is only 95 percent complete, so various aspects of it may change.
According to the matrix report discussed at the board meeting, the matrix approach is not intended as a vehicle to solve basic differences of opinion regarding governance issues; however, the approach can be useful in identifying areas of disagreement.
"It allows us to look at how things are, rather than how they ought to be," said Guy Newland, philosophy and religion associate professor and member of the shared governance committee. "This is an accurate reflection of how government works."
In the matrix report, "Shared Governance Principles and Responsibilities for Trustees" included suggestions to "present rationale for decisions," "reduce micro-management and uphold academic freedom' and "avoid undermining administration and personal or special interests."
In addition, under "CMU Principles and Recommendations Regarding Shared Governance," the ad-hoc committee on governance is called on to devise and implement a plan to operationalize certain recommendations, such as to "improve the communication environment in order to build mutual trust," to "solicit and consider faculty input before decisions are made that have a direct impact on the academic area of the university" and to "obtain commitment of the Board of Trustees and the administration to adhere to current policies and procedures governing decision-making until or unless they are formally modified."
In recent years, "the communication between faculty and administration has been threadbare," Trustee Jerry Campbell said, "But it's gotten much better."
Management and Law Assistant Professor Elaine Daniels, a member of the committee on shared governance, said the group's next step will be to gather feedback from the university community on how well shared governance can work and to hear possible recommendations for improving it.
