Members Present: Mary Lou Argueta, Nancy Dillard, Tori Ellison, Bill Haggard, Jane Hall, Casey Hurley, Bob Orr, Carolyn Parris, Will Peebles, John Ritchie, Jonathan Rowe, Linda Sutton, Roger Turk, Dave Whitaker, Kathleen Wright
Members Absent: Robert Blankenship, Lisa Bloom, Christy Brown, Dianne Cook, Joe Cowan, Andy DeGrove, Fred Hinson, Jeanine Knowles, and Don Livingston
Acting Chairman Casey Hurley called the meeting to order at 10:08 am.
After circulating a roster to be corrected if necessary, the committee began discussing its next course of action. Casey mentioned that the agenda we had simply reflected his thoughts about where this group should be for this meeting. There was also some discussion concerning the possible formation of a Bylaws Subcommittee, much like the Staff Forum. After discussion, it was decided that this group was structured unlike any other body on campus. The formal basis for the UAC was built on trust and cooperation.
John Ritchie mentioned the drafting of an Identity Statement that could be used to better understand the boundaries of this body. Bob, Nancy, and Roger concurred, and Jane summarized by suggesting another edition of the Sharing Governance Newsletter be issued to inform the community of the Mission and Identity Statement when they are complete.
There was discussion about the selection of officers and committee chairs. Dave offered the standard parliamentary procedure for this process. John mentioned that perhaps it would be helpful if we waited to see who emerged as having the energy and know how to fill those positions before officers were selected. The discussion that followed supported this idea.
Nancy Dillard asked if this group would meet during the summer months. The consensus of the group was no, due to faculty and student availability, or lack thereof. Casey stated that it might be a good idea to keep the calendar of meeting to the academic cycle, August to May versus from January to December or June to July.
Bill Haggard suggested the group begin looking at the UAC Taskforce's Final Report as a good way to bring the membership up to speed on the work done by the taskforce. Jane Hall read pieces from the handout provided at Orientation including the Standards of Good Governance as well as the suggestions concerning the general functioning of the UAC, as defined on page 12, paragraph one of the Final Report*.
Nancy asked how we would define boundaries of what the UAC would or could hear or not hear. Jane stated that in order to be heard by the UAC, an issue would need to affect more than one constituent group. Jane also offered additional expectations of this group including building community, allowing constituent groups ample opportunity to voice concerns, as well as a “…force to use leadership and communication to form a constructive dialogue [between groups]”. Bill Haggard clarified this group will simply work to assist other groups.
After Casey drew a diagram on the board to represent the University Community and Administration, Will Peebles mentioned that perhaps instead of just recognizing where differences in the community and administration exist, the UAC could try to remedy those differences by offering alternative solutions to whatever problem may exist.
John Ritchie said that the UAC is not usually the first step in solving a problem. The constituent groups will usually do a good deal of the work and then come to us. “We are not a step one, but usually a step two or step three.” Bob gave examples constituent specific matters to the Staff Forum including Staff Leadership Development and benefits. Bill then offered additional examples including SGA allocation of funds to student groups, faculty matters covered in the Code, etc.
At this point, there was discussion about just how matters were heard. Bob stated that we could be a step one in certain circumstances. Bill replied by stating the UAC is a group like no other. We cannot be all things to all people but the UAC would hear matters like book rental, calendar changes/recommendations, and WCU's spring break coinciding with the Jackson county school's spring break. Casey mentioned the Chancellor would be present to hear these concerns and that he holds the final authority on matters.
Some discussion took place concerning certain committees that do not solicit feedback from groups on campus in crafting its product, i.e. the Calendar Committee. Many of the members of the UAC had no idea who was even on that committee. This discussion led to the realization that we would be able to offer that advice to many similarly vague committees.
The Executive Council of the UAC, which would consist of the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Committee Chairs, and 4 members at large from the UAC, would set the agenda. Nancy mentioned it would be helpful if the Executive Committee would report on all matters it considered placing on the agenda, so something important wouldn't accidentally slip past the Council's attention. Once a matter is in front of the UAC, it then becomes subject to the Council's control.
Bill highlighted the Standard of Good Governance Number 6*, which states that evaluating all of our processes is an ongoing concern. Our group should keep this idea in mind. Casey asked if this meeting had been helpful in answering questions concerning how and what the UAC should be doing. Nancy replied that she felt much more comfortable after these deliberations.
John suggested that our next group meeting should consider whether or not to accept the TFUG/UAC Taskforce's ideas in the Final Report. It was also decided by consensus that we should try to elect officers by the end of the next meeting. In order to keep from feeling rushed and to be ready to meet forcefully in the fall, we should have officers chosen as well as a preliminary framework by the end of this semester.
There will be an additional dinner meeting sometime during the semester. The dates for those are either April 12 or May 9. Please see the email from Casey for additional information.
The meeting adjourned at 11:21 am.
Respectfully Submitted,
David A. Whitaker
Acting Secretary
*Attachments: Standard of Good Governance Number 6, General Functions of UAC from Final Report
Attachments from Context from Minutes
** From the Standards of Good Governance (Taken from <http://www.wcu.edu/UnivGov/standard.htm>)
“6. The governance process is an ongoing dialogue and the process will be continually evaluated. Support and encouragement for innovation are evident, even in the short-term. There is flexibility that accommodates experimentation, and the system has the ability to change itself.”
** From the Task Force for University Governance Final Proposal (Taken from http://www.wcu.edu/UnivGov/governance.htm)
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. |
