Home

Task Force on University Governance Proposal

l.         Create a university governance process that allows all campus stakeholders an opportunity to have voice and influence in an environment of trust, honest communication, and collegiality.

2.      Develop efficient governance processes.

3.      Allow each campus constituency to have autonomy and independence, but to also provide structures that enable them to work collaboratively with other campus groups, when appropriate.

Therefore, we are proposing a governance structure designed to achieve these processes and outcomes.

OVERVIEW

Effective university governance functions simultaneously at different levels, and its overall effect is to promote both the smooth operation of the institution and the achievement of educational objectives. The proposed model acknowledges the practice of governance at multiple levels, and focuses on three in particular.

The first level is that of the university community; we are all citizens of WCU.  Taken as a whole, we form the largest, most heterogeneous campus group.  Our task force appreciates the richness of our personnel resources, but we also recognize the need to strengthen Western's sense of community.

The second level consists of the four WCU stakeholder groups--students, faculty, staff, and administration. This level of governance is to be restructured under the proposed model.  Each group, except administration, is to reorganize itself to deal with concerns and issues that affect its members.  We hope reorganization will lead to more effective and efficient self-governance of students, faculty, and staff.

The third level is the University Advisory Council.  This body will have equal representation from all constituent groups.  Its purposes are to advise university decision making bodies, and to facilitate collaboration across the four groups.  The functions and purposes of this council need to be considered as the three constituencies reorganize themselves. 

All members of the task force emphasize that, regardless of structure, university governance will be effective only if we work together in a spirit of trust, respect, cooperation, collegiality, and honest deliberation.  Therefore, it is expected that when representatives sit at the Advisory Council "table", they will take a university-wide perspective based on their experiences as members of a particular group.

A task force goal is to emphasize community and minimize a pyramid of decision-making.  To determine our progress in this area, we recommend that a formal governance assessment be carried out after two years.  This will allow time to organize governance and then assess what is working well and what needs changing.  

DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Advisory Council 

Six representatives from each of Western Carolina University's four constituencies--students, faculty, staff, and administration--will serve on the University Advisory Council. Each constituency has its own association, which decides how to elect representatives to the Council.  We urge each constituency to elect at-large representatives as well as members of their governance organization to the Advisory Council.  Membership on the Council is for staggered, three-year terms. The Chancellor, or his/her designee, will be an ex officio member of the Council.  

Advisory Council Purposes 

The purposes of this Council are to coordinate university-wide initiatives, to facilitate communication across constituencies, and to foster effective campus leadership. The Council meets monthly to discuss and coordinate developments that affect two or more constituencies. The Council has two standing committees--Leadership and Communication.  The purpose of the Leadership Committee is to educate all campus community members about the process of self-governance.  The purpose of the Communication Committee is to establish and maintain avenues of communication across constituencies.  The Council establishes ad hoc task forces to study university-wide issues, concerns, and initiatives. 

Advisory Council Functions 

The Council is designed to:

1.      facilitate discussion of campus-wide issues.

2.      give equal voice to all constituencies. 

3.      provide a forum for idea generation and creative problem solving.

4.      consult with and support the leadership of constituent organizations.

5.      foster a sense of community. 

6.      make recommendations to the Chancellor and other appropriate decision‑making bodies.  

Relationships with Constituent Associations 

The University Advisory Council does not oversee constituent organizations.  Instead, constituent organizations are expected to work independently on those matters that concern only their members.  On matters of concern to two or more constituencies, campus organizations are expected to work cooperatively with the Advisory Council.  The Council's relationships with constituent associations are characterized by support and assistance. 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONSTITUENT GROUPS

Organizational effectiveness increases when functions and structure coincide with the values and beliefs of  the membership.  Therefore, recommendations for the organizing constituent groups (based on campus feedback, task force discussions, consultant feedback, and readings)  will be forwarded to groups as they begin the reorganization process.  How a group decides to incorporate these suggestions will be determined by the group's membership.  The task force offers these ideas as a starting point for possible reorganization.  Task force members from each of the constituencies are available to facilitate and assist with the complex work of  reorganizing our Faculty Senate, Student Government Association, and university staff.

Recommendations:  FACULTY

In an effort to develop a new way to exercise influence and voice, the Task Force on University Governance requests that the Faculty Senate consider examining ways to more effectively practice the standards of good governance.  This request has two purposes.  The first is to allow faculty to deal more efficiently and effectively with issues inside their domain.  The second is to allow the Senate to more actively interact with the new University Advisory Council.

Recommendation 1:  Review the historical process of governance at WCU, identifying elements contributing to the emergence of parallel governance groups in order to "learn from the past" as we look forward to collaborative governance.

Rationale:  The Faculty Senate was substantially reorganized a decade ago; the changes were structural and there was little effective change in processes and little change in faculty engagement in governance.  Hence, the most recent faculty governance body has not been more effective or efficient than the former Senate and many faculty continue to perceive governance as unimportant.

Furthermore, over the course of the past fifteen years university work in the domain of faculty governance has been performed outside the Senate (e.g., outcomes assessment, general education, strategic planning, and, until recently, intercollegiate athletics).  Hence, responsibilities of the Faculty Senate, some of which are described in the Bylaws, have been attended to by committees and offices "outside" faculty governance.  This has occurred for several reasons, one being the administrative desire to formalize the activity within its own domain.

More recently, however, groups parallel to the Faculty Senate have been engaged because of members' particular talents and knowledge and their ability to perform work efficiently.  Much of this work has come before the Senate for endorsement.

 Historically, there has been nothing akin to the "Standards of Good Governance," and the absence of such principles has contributed to relatively low levels of cooperation among WCU stakeholders.

Recommendation 2:  Develop ad hoc task forces rather than councils as the primary method for identifying action procedures for issues studied.

Rationale:  The nature of much faculty governance work is project-oriented.  That is, many of the tasks have a particular focus and, once attended to, they are completed.  Little work is ongoing.  Task forces are beneficial because they utilize expertise, rally around a specific obligation, and formally disband upon the completion of the work.  Is the Senate interested in reorganizing toward a task force approach to faculty governance?

Recommendation 3:  Identify faculty members who will serve as liaisons to the other constituent governance groups.

Rationale:  The "Standards of Good Governance" contain several phrases which speak to the desire to build community on Western's campus:

§         Genuine collegiality and respect exist both among members of a group and between that group and other groups (faculty, staff, students and administrators).

§         An institution-wide perspective is supported and rewarded.

§         Informed advice is fueled by adequate information.

Is it possible to build community without knowing and understanding each other's needs and goals?  Could this knowledge be built by identifying members who would serve as liaisons from the faculty association to other constituent groups, specifically to student and staff associations?

Recommendation 4:  Develop a simple, flat decision-making process so that decisions are made by those for whom the issue has the most relevance, and by those who have appropriate expertise and authority.

Rationale:  Our current Senate organizational structure, with its multiple councils and committees, might be more complex than necessary.  Can the faculty build a new organizational structure that is at least as effective as the current one, but simpler?  Does our current faculty governance structure fit well with department and college structures?  Should it?  Can it?  What are the concerns that are particularly important and relevant to faculty?  Can our structure reflect these?

 Recommendation 5:  Propose a structure that could be implemented in the university reward system for service.

Rationale:  "We conclude that the full range of faculty talent must be creatively assessed.  It is unacceptable, we believe, to go on using research and publication as the primary criterion for tenure and promotion when other educational obligations are required."

Boyer, E.L. (1990).  Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate.  Princeton:  Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Are we ready to acknowledge that the best method to ensure good governance is good participation?  Participation is often connected to rewards.   What rewards currently exist to enlist quality participation in the university governance system?  Service is an equal  component  of  the  Western  Carolina  University mission statement.   What part does  it play in Departmental Tenure, Promotion and Retention criteria?  Should we expect to measurably increase the quality of our governance system without incentives to encourage participation and reward this service activity?

Individuals must be held accountable for participation and their actions; failure to engage appropriately in governance is as serious as poor performance in a functional area.  (Feedback from WCU Governance Focus Groups.)

Recommendation 6:  Annually evaluate faculty governance at WCU.

 Rationale: One of the ten "Standards of Good Governance" is that governance should be continually evaluated.  Is the faculty interested in establishing an evaluation process that would suggest structural and procedural improvements in faculty governance?  Does the faculty endorse the ten "Standards"?  If so, should these be used as  a basis for evaluating faculty governance at WCU?

Recommendation 7:  Seek a broad base of faculty representation on the University Advisory Council.

Recommendations:  STUDENTS

In an effort to develop a new way to exercise influence and voice, the Task Force on University Governance requests that the Student Government Association consider examining ways to more effectively practice the "Standards of Good Governance."  This request has two purposes.  The first is to allow the Student Government Association and others to deal more efficiently and effectively with issues inside their domain.  The second is to allow the SGA to more actively interact with the new University Advisory Council.

We have identified some issues that may facilitate the reorganization process.  We hope these suggestions are useful.  They include:

Recommendation 1:  Representation that is more inclusive of the general student population

Recommendation 2:  A legislative process that is geared to address high priority issues

Recommendation 3:   Redistribution of work so that the Senate standing committees are better utilized.

Recommendation 4:   Increasing the SGA communication to the student body.

Recommendation 5:   Examining pathways through which all interested students can engage in the decision-making process.

Recommendation 6:   Interacting more with the Faculty Senate, the Staff Assembly, and other legislative bodies on campus to foster community.

Recommendation 7:  Seek a broad base of student representation on the University Advisory  Council.      

  Developing a STAFF FORUM

In an effort to develop a new way to exercise influence and voice, the Task Force on University Governance requests that a staff organization be developed. This request has two purposes.  The first is to allow staff to deal more efficiently and effectively with issues inside their domain.  The second is to allow the Staff Forum to more actively interact with the new University Advisory Council.

 PURPOSE:          

1.      Providing a regular, open forum to facilitate communication between all levels of employees and the University administration concerning general employment interests and concerns, current University operational problems, and University plans or projects.  The Forum, however, is not intended as a vehicle to deal with individual issues, grievances, or complaints, nor as a means to circumvent regular administrative channels.

2.      Seeking out the issues, concerns, ideas, and participation of staff.

3.      Developing recommendations for more efficient and effective university operations.

4.      Providing an effective two-way communication link between the administration and staff.

5.      Fostering an open and positive environment throughout the University community.

6.      Supporting the University's mission of teaching, research, and public service.

VISION: 

The Staff Forum seeks to improve the quality of life at Western Carolina University for its students and all employees.  This can be accomplished through mutual understanding, recognition of staff contributions, support for professional development and technical training, and respect for the worth of the individual.

 PARTICIPATION:

Participation is voluntary.  Employees engaged in Staff Forum activities will be granted release time from their regular work schedule with the support of their Supervisors and Managers.  Release time for Forum functions, including committee activities, will be considered work time.

MEMBERSHIP:

The Staff Forum consists of elected representatives of SPA and EPA non-faculty employees.  Membership on the Staff Forum committees, members of task forces, and delegates to the University Advisory Council shall be permanent part time and full time Employees who have completed probationary requirements.

The Chancellor, or his/her designee, and the Director of Human Resources shall serve as ex-officio, non-voting members of the Forum.  They shall function as liaisons between the University administration and the Staff Forum.

Recommendation:     
Seek a broad base of staff representation on the University Advisory Council.

The ADMINISTRATIVE Council

Western Carolina University's Administrative Council is presently composed of administrative officials from across the University. It includes the Vice Chancellors, Deans, Directors, and other members of the administration in both line and staff positions.  The council is chaired by the Chancellor, who selects members, and is primarily a means of communication between and among the Chancellor, and upper-level administrators. It is a communication and advisory group, not a policy-making body. The Chancellor and Vice Chancellors lead discussions of issues of university-wide interest.

In a revised governance structure the Administrative Council would continue to function as a communication and advisory body, with its membership selected by the Chancellor and largely defined by the administrative positions held by its members.

 Recommendation:  Seek a broad base of administrative representation on the University Advisory Council.